Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Political Profiling

2007-06-09T20:18:43Z

Robledo: Sorting this train wreck of two separate articles.

A particularly shocking and dangerous example of [[guilt-by-association]] targeting and profiling occurred when two New Mexico grandmothers found themselves suspected of being [[terrorist]]s after appearing on a radio talk show where they criticized the federal government and the United Nations. Kay Stone and Jean Vallance were investigated by New Mexico Department of Public Safety (State Police) after appearing on KINN radio in Alamagordo in June, 1998.

State police Lt. Bill Bowers called the station and spoke with talk show host Mike Shinaberry, who was asked about the couple and Maude Rathgeber, the Otereo [[Republican party]] chairwomen, who had also been on the show in the past. According to Shinaberry:

{{Cquote|It bothered me that anyone would be the subject of an investigation simply because they got on the radio and said what they believed... None of them ever came close to espousing violence. <ref>NM Women Worry They’re On Secret List ‘Radicals’, Scott Parks, ''Dallas Morning News'', 13 September 1998.</ref>}}

According to ''The Dallas Morning News'', which covered the story from the beginning:

{{Cquote|Maj. Michael Francis, another state police officer...said the inquiries into Ms. Stone and Ms. Vallance sprang from the activities of a Domestic Terrorism Task Force, comprising local, state and federal agents. }}

The two women were also investigated by the military officials at a nearby Air Force Base:

{{Cquote|Six days later, on June 17, Mrs. Vallance said she received a phone call from Special Agent Amanda Finerty, from the office of special investigations [OSI] at Holloman Air Force Base.

Mrs. Vallance, a retired nurse who is married to a civilian employee at Holloman, said Agent Finerty asked about her religious affiliation and whether anyone was “planning something” against German pilots [stationed at the base].}}

All of this came about by the issuance of a manual entitled ''The Extreme Right: An Overview''
containing in large part material from a [[leftist]] "Watchdog" organization to law enforcement agencies. <ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox],''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Editorial Research Service, 1999. ISBN 0-993592-96-5. </ref> According to news sources:

{{Cquote|The 73-page document included profiles of fringe groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, as well as skinheads and extremists who believe each race should have its own land in the United States. Lumped into the manual’s description of terrorists, racists and other pariahs is an excerpt on the so-called “[[wise use]]” movement, which advocates more local control over federally owned lands. }}

Shinaberry was spurred to investigate this manual. Speaking again with Lt. Bill Bowers he was told “that the federal government had asked state police to create a -- he used the term intelligence database’ -- to make lists of people who might be radicals.” He also noted that
the manual suggests an anti-government continuum of groups that apparently run from the most peaceful to those with a reputation for violence, with no distinction made between them. As it happened the contents of the manual were leaked to the public after the police inquiries into the two women.

Ranchers and loggers erupted in anger at the manual’s juxtaposition of the [[wise use]] movement with Nazi and Klan groups....Local government officials, concerned about the impact of federal policies on rural economies, also objected to the manual.

{{Cquote|“They labeled us as dissidents when all we went to do is participate in decisions about how federal lands are used,” said Adam Polley, a Catron County official in western New Mexico. }}

Darren White, the Governor’s cabinet secretary for the state police, apologized for the manual and issued a written apology dated 9 July 1998:

{{Cquote|“I recognize that across New Mexico thousands of farmers, ranchers, miners, loggers and others are committed to preserving a way of life free from unnecessary regulation,” he wrote. “I believe free speech and the spoken word sustain our freedom.” }}

The "Watchdog" organization manual and others like it continue to be circulated among law enforcement officials nationwide, even though its effect is to target ordinary American citizens on the basis of the values, opinions and beliefs. <ref>Laird Wilcox, ''[http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/wilcox.html The Watchdogs]''. </ref> The Wise use movement was the target of political profiling and placed on the this leftist Watchdog list because if frequently takes positions contrary to the [[Sierra Club]] and the [[Wilderness Society]]. <ref>[http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=ef ATTAC Report].</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Wise use

2007-06-09T20:18:28Z

Robledo: Sorting this train wreck of two separate articles.

The '''Wise Use''' movement is a group of citizens in the Western United States who are frequently called upon by local governments to give citizen input into the wise use and municipal planning for Western lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the [[U.S. Department of the Interior]] is entrusted with managing very large Western land holdings of the United States, and citizen input is mandated by law under many circumstances, for example before lands can be leased, sold, or annexed into a municipality.

Doner kebab

2007-06-07T23:07:27Z

Robledo: fix link sp.

A '''doner kebab''' ([[Turkey|Turkish]]: ''turning roast'') is a popular Turkish dish made with lamb, beef or chicken. The meat is cooked on a vertical rotating spit and then served in [[pitta bread]] with salad and lashings of hot chilli sauce. The doner kebab has become a staple of the [[United Kingdom|British]] post-[[pub]] diet.

[[Category:Fast foods]]
[[Category:Meat]]

Doner kebab

2007-06-07T23:05:54Z

Robledo: Description

A '''doner kebab''' ([[Turkey|Turkish]]: ''turning roast'') is a popular Turkish dish made with lamb, beef or chicken. The meat is cooked on a vertical rotating spit and then served in [[pitta bread]] with salad and lashings of hot chilli sauce. The doner kebab has become a staple of the [[United Kindom|British]] post-[[pub]] diet.

[[Category:Fast foods]]
[[Category:Meat]]

User talk:DeborahB.

2007-06-05T00:05:10Z

Robledo: /* Thanks */ You won't like him when he's angry...

1267 [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=DeborahB. edits], 811 unique edits.

== Profanity? ==

I didn't see any there. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:23, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

: I deleted a userbox that had d*** on it. [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 16:10, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

*It's okay. You can say damn. But I agree with your decision. ;-) Even the mildly profane shouldn't be a part of who we are.--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:15, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Userboxes ==

I see that you are having trouble with the userboxes; since they are templates, they are already included on many people's pages, and therefore changing the template changes the meaning of their viewpoint. I've made you a new template, at [[Template:User gay is not ok]]. To include this on your userpage, include <nowiki>{{User gay is not ok}}</nowiki> on your userpage. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:26, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks! This is my first time creating my own userboxes, and it is a bit confusing. [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 18:31, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::No problem! Feel free to ask me if you have any more questions about userboxes, templates, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:34, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Userboxes 2 ==

Thanks DeborahB for letting me know what shouldn't be locked. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:05, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

:Your welcome :) And thanks for unblocking it. [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 17:11, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

*You have forgotten to add the links on your box. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:09, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

There are, in a sense, two ways to make a userbox. All user boxes use the template {{tl|userbox}} as a base.

The first way is to create a template (all user boxes are templates) based on the template {{tl|userbox}}, and include in your template whatever it is that you want it to contain. You then place that template on your user page, and other editors can place it on their pages if they wish. This is what you have done with all the user boxes on your page (except that they were created by other people), except for the homeschooling one.

The second is to put {{tl|userbox}} itself on your user page and directly code the contents there. This is what you have done with the homeschooling one.

You include any user box templates that you create in the user box list so that others can use them also. But if you've directly coded yours on your user page, then there is no template for others to use (although they can always copy your code, of course), and little point in putting it in the lists of user boxes.

Before I explain any more, are you satisfied with the way you've done it, or would you like to turn your homeschooling one into a template?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

You obviously didn't read the box at the top of my talk page which said that I would watch your page for replies. :-)

Creating a user box is pretty simple really—once you know how, of course.

Anyway, see [[Conservapedia:How to create a new article|here]] for creating a new page (if you don't already understand that), with particular reference to the section on creating templates. (Don't bother following the link to further instructions on creating templates, as it doesn't really apply to user boxes.) But in essence, if you want your user box to be called "homeschooled", then you can click on this link: {{user homeschooled}}.

Then put the content of your user box on that newly-created page, and save it.

That's it. Go back to the list of user boxes where you put the homeschooling one and change it to follow the same format as the others on that page, and do the same with your user page, and you're done.

If I've assumed too much about what you understand, let me know and I'll try and make it clearer.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop==
I'm nominating you. End of discussion! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:05, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

==Capitals==

I left a note about it on the appropriate talk page just now, but most of the capitals already have stubs for them, but listed without the state after them. The index is here. http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:US_State_Capitals [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:17, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

== Answer ==

Deborah, the Sysop nomination page is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Sysop_contest/Nominations here].

In the future, you can search for these items by clicking on more than one namespace. To find this, it is necessary to search for "Sysop" in the namespace "Conservapedia". Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

==Hi!==
Hi Deborah! Have you seen Pirates of the Carribean 3? I just went to see it and thought it was really good. I hope they make a fourth movie! [[User:BethanyS|~Beth~]]

== Articles... ==

Deborah, please understand that when looking for potential new sysops, we take into account the content, not just the article count. Could you please refrain from just posting stubs, and actually offer a complete article? Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:59, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for your concise entries, Deborah! I've learned from them already. We don't want long-winded, confusing entries here as there are on Wikipedia. Please continue your efforts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks for the snipe and undercut, Andy. You are totally out of line and mean spirited here. ''Perhaps you need to consider removing me''. The articles are blatant stubs, and should more logically be incorporated under [[Congress]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:38, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Laptop: £400. Internet connection: £15 a month. The above exchange: Priceless. :) --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:05, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Bob Dylan

2007-06-01T18:09:08Z

Robledo: Substantial rewrite: chronological focus & pointing to his major albums.

'''Bob Dylan''' (1941 - ) is one of the towering figures of 20th century music. Born Robert Zimmerman in [[Duluth]], [[Minnesota]], he grew up in Hibbing and left to attend the [[University of Minnesota]] in [[Minneapolis]]. It was there that he developed a deep interest in [[folk music]], listening to the recordings of artists such as [[Odetta]] and [[Woody Guthrie]]. In 1961, he dropped out of college and headed to [[New York City]], where he became part of the burgeoning folk music scene in [[Greenwich Village]] and eventually landed a contract with [[Columbia Records]], for whom he still records today.

His first four studio albums<ref>Bob Dylan (1962); The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan (1963); The Times They Are a-Changin' (1964); and Another Side of Bob Dylan (1964)</ref> established Dylan as a major voice within the developing protest counterculture of the early Sixties. It was ''Bringing It All Back Home'' (1965), however, that propelled him to international fame and stardom. To howls of protest from his devoted "folkie" fans, Dylan "plugged in" for the first time and the album's glorious fusion of electric guitars, driving rock rhythyms and his unique lyrical style<ref>By turns surreal, poetic, visionary and political.</ref> set a benchmark to which all other artists aspired. He arguably never scaled these heights again, especially in terms of producing an album of such consistent quality and musical completeness. His next three albums<ref>Highway 61 Revisited (1965); Blonde on Blonde (1966); and John Wesley Harding (1967)</ref> are rightly highly regarded, but after these his output became of increasingly variable quality and ''Blood On The Tracks'' (1975) is his last studio album of any true musical significance.

In 2004, he published the first volume of ''Chronicles'', his planned autobiography. Since 2005, he has had a weekly radio show on XM Radio and he chose "The Bible" as the theme of a recent show, playing songs by the Reverend J.M. Gates, Kitty Wells, and the Reverend Gary Davis. His most recent album, ''Modern Times'' (2006), reached #1 on the pop music charts; at age 65, he is the oldest artist to have attained that mark.

== Notes and references ==
<references/>

== External links ==
[http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/bobdylan/discography Dylan discography on Rolling Stone.com]

[[Category:Musicians|Dylan, Bob]]

Talk:Homosexual rights advocacy

2007-05-31T22:07:57Z

Robledo: /* Polls */ excellent question...

For much of American history, indeed, for much of world history, homosexuality has been a taboo subject. Often, it has been considered a crime in itself. Yet today, millions of gay and lesbian Americans are not only open about their sexuality, they are campaigning for new laws which they say would grant them the same rights accorded to heterosexuals, including the right to marry and protection against discrimination. [http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=gay_rights]

LGBT movements aim for political and cultural change. Sociologist Mary Bernstein writes: "For the lesbian and gay movement, then, cultural goals include (but are not limited to) challenging dominant constructions of [[masculinity]] and [[femininity]], [[homophobia]], and the primacy of the gendered heterosexual [[nuclear family]] ([[heteronormativity]]). Political goals include changing laws and policies in order to gain new [[rights]], benefits, and protections from harm."<ref>Bernstein, Mary (2002). ''Identities and Politics: Toward a Historical Understanding of the Lesbian and Gay Movement''. Social Science History 26:3 (fall 2002).</ref> Bernstein emphasizes that activists seek both types of goals in both the civil and political spheres. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights]

Federal hate crimes laws don’t protect GLBT Americans — yet. [http://www.hrc.org/]
*"Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights"

Congress is poised to introduce federal legislation outlawing LGBT discrimination in the workplace. But we still need your help to persuade lawmakers. [http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/index.html]
*In a brief filed today with the California Supreme Court, attorneys representing same-sex couples, Equality California and Our Family Coalition urged the court to strike down as unconstitutional a law that bars same-sex couples from marriage. The couples and organizations are represented by lead counsel the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Heller Ehrman LLP, and the Law Office of David C. Codell.
*The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas cheered the decision of the Arkansas House Judiciary Committee today to reject SB 959, a bill that would have banned gay people and most unmarried heterosexual couples who live together from adopting or serving as foster parents.
*The American Civil Liberties Union cheered Representative John Conyers (D-MI) for introducing H.R.1000, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. The bill would permit federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute local crimes in which the victim was selected due to the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
*George Bach, a staff Attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, will receive the Human Rights Alliance "Treasure Award" at the 13th Annual Human Rights Alliance Gay-la in Santa Fe on Saturday, March 17 at the Hotel Eldorado. Bach’s legal efforts have advanced the cause of civil rights in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

CRUSADING ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL GROUPS [http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/antigroup.html]

Advance America

Alliance Defense Fund

Alliance for Marriage

The American Center for Law and Justice

American Family Association

Americans for Truth

Beyond Borders

Campaign for Children and Families

Canada Family Action Coalition

Center for Reclaiming America for Christ

Children's Protection & Advocacy Coalition (CPAC)

Christian Coalition of America

Citizens for Community Values

Concerned Women For America

Cybertip.ca

The Dove Foundation

Dr. Laura

Eagle Forum

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Family Policy Network

Family Research Council

Focus on the Family

Free Congress Foundation

Free Market Foundation

GayMarriageNO.org!

The Heritage Foundation

Jerry Falwell Ministries

Massachusetts Family Institute

Minnesota Family Council

Morality in Media

National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality

National Association to Protect Children

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children

NoSpecialRights.net

The Oregon Family Council

Parents Television Council

Pennsylvania Family Institute

Perverted-Justice.com

RenewAmerica

Republican National Committee

The Rutherford Institute

Take Back Maryland

Traditional Values Coalition

VoteOnMarriage.org

This morning we heard news that Senate Bill 2 (statewide anti-discrimination) and HB 2007 (would legally recognize same-sex relationships) will get hearings on Monday, April 9th at 5:30pm in the Oregon House Elections, Ethics and Rules Committee. [http://www.gayrightswatch.com/]
*Steve Stanton was fired by the Largo City Council because he was forced to announce that he was transgender and planning on transitioning to a female, the gender of which he was not physically born into, but that he was mentally born into. Not familiar with transgender issues? Go read up on the subject on Wikipedia. (Transgender, Gender Dysphoria)

==legal issues==
*''undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis''
:So due discrimination can occur with a rational basis? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
The answer is in a state of constitutional flux, but the current answer is "probably" - for example, Kennedy in Lawrence specifically says that discriminating against gays by forbidding gay marriage is okay. I happen to disagree, but I'm here to tell you what the law is, not what I want it to be.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Polls==

Why are we allowed to keep a four year old poll in the opposition section, but not a one week old poll in the support section? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Because it dares to suggest most people aren't that bothered about whether or not people are gay. That's fightin' talk round these parts... ;) --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:07, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

John Betjeman

2007-05-30T20:06:42Z

Robledo: ref re. sales & 1st verse from Slough. Come, friendly bombs.... :)

Sir '''John Betjeman''' (1906-1984) remains one of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] best loved and best-selling poets.<ref>His ''Collected Poems'' (1958) has sold over 2.5 million copies. [http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/24/RVGG4N01RD1.DTL&type=books]</ref> He was appointed '''Poet Laureate''' in 1972 and served until his death in 1984. He was also passionate about [[Queen Victoria|Victorian]] architecture and campaigned against the demolition of several notable buildings. His poetry largely has an eye to British middle-class life, particularly the recent past. He was a lifelong [[Anglican]] and his religion often comes into his poetry in a light-hearted and occasionally jocular manner. He wrote many poems but one about the "Conversion of St. Paul" highlights his attitude:
<blockquote>''But most of us turn slow to see 
''The figure hanging on a tree 
''And stumble on and blindly grope 
''Upheld by intermittent hope, 
''God grant before we die, we all 
''May see the light as did St. Paul. ''</blockquote>

His mild and affable manner won him many admirers as television personality, bringing his poetry to an audience of millions. He remains perhaps best remembered for his (only half-joking) exhortations for the levelling of Slough, a soulless English town:
<blockquote>''Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough'' 
''It isn't fit for humans now, 
''There isn't grass to graze a cow 
''Swarm over, Death!</blockquote>

He was one of the brains behind the hugely successful ''Shell Guides To Britain'' and was a regular contributor to the satirical magazine ''[[Private Eye]]'' for its architectural column ''Nooks & Crannies''. When asked whether he had any regrets in an television interview shortly before his death, he famously replied, ''"Yes, I wish I'd had more sex."''

== References ==
<references/>

Dylan Thomas

2007-05-26T22:03:39Z

Robledo: tweak of Do not go Gentle ref

[[Image:Dylanthomas.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Portrait of the artist as a young dog]]
Dylan Marlais Thomas was born on October 27, 1914 at No 5, Cwmdonkin Drive in [[Swansea]], and died on November 9, 1953 in St Vincent's Hospital, [[New York]]. During his lifetime he wrote many great poems, including ''Fern Hill,'' <ref> for a full version of the poem see: http://www.bigeye.com/fernhill.htm </ref> and the villanelle ''Do not go Gentle into that Good Night.'' <ref>The only other modern English villanelle of equal significance is William Empson's "Missing Dates." Inspired by the death of Thomas' own father, it is a searing howl of protest at the inevitability of oblivion: [http://www.bigeye.com/donotgo.htm ''Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.'']</ref> Most of all he is famous for writing the 'play for voices' [[Under Milk Wood]], and the collection of stories, [[Portrait of the Artist as a Young Dog]].

==Under Milk Wood==
Thomas never fully completed Under Milk Wood, but it was published after his death in 1954. The play had its first solo performance by Dylan Thomas in the Fogg Museum at [[Harvard]] on May 3, 1953, and a stage performance in [[New York]] on October 25 of that year, just before his death on November 9, 1953. It was first broadcast on 25 January 1954 on the [[BBC]] Third Programme. Other productions followed in 1978 and 1994. However, perhaps best known is the 1963 production for radio, with narration by [[Richard Burton]], who claimed "the entire thing is about religion, the idea of death and sex". These important themes are central to the lives of the colourful characters whom Dylan Thomas describes with a great deal of fondness. The play begins:
<blockquote> ''It is Spring, moonless night in the small town, starless and bible-black, the cobblestreets silent and the hunched, courter's-and-rabbits' wood limping invisible down to the sloeblack, slow, black, crowblack, fishingboat-bobbing sea. The houses are are blind as moles (though moles see fine tonight in the snouting, velvet dingles) or blind as Captain Cat there in the muffled middle by the pump and the town clock, the shops in mourning, the Welfare Hall in widows' weeds. And all the people of the lulled and dumbfound town are sleeping now.''</blockquote>
The setting of ''Under Milk Wood'' is in the fictional town of [[Llareggub]]<ref> See the following link for the location and explanation of the town name: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llareggub The origin of Llareggub]</ref>, situated in South Wales. It is generally thought that the town of [[New Quay]] is the actual setting which inspired Thomas, and that he began a draft of the play called ''Quite Early One Morning'' as early as 1944.

==References==
<references/>

==Links==

[http://www.dylanthomas.com/ The Dylan Thomas Homepage]

Torture

2007-05-23T18:47:13Z

Robledo: rmv line space

The term '''torture''' refers acts which inflict severe pain or mutilation on prisoners. Governments, armies and tyrants have inflicted torture on opponents throughout recorded history, chiefly against [[slave]]s and [[rebel]]s, but also against political or religious dissidents.

In the West, the best known cases of torture were inflicted by ecclesiastical and political authorities during the Middle Ages. A well-known example from historical fiction occurs in ''[[Ivanhoe]]'', and well-known examples from real history can be found in the [[Malleus Maleficarum]]<ref>[http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/ The Malleus Maleficarum]</ref>, a manual for [[Witch Hunt|witch hunters]]. Opposition to torture on [[human rights]] grounds began in the 20th century, yet it persists in countries as diverse as [[China]] and [[Sudan]]. 

== UN definition ==
The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment defines torture as:

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." <ref>http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureDefinition</ref>

== Common methods ==
Torture is widely practiced in many countries throughout the world as a means of intimidating the ruling regime's opponents. Amnesty International in Asia & the Pacific states that incidences of torture or ill treatment by the police have been reported in over 140 different countries since 1997. <ref>http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureContext</ref> By far most commonly reported method of torture is physical beatings - other commonly reported methods include:

* [[Rape]] and [[sexual abuse]] in custody

* [[Mock execution]] or threat of death

* Prolonged [[solitary confinement]]

* [[Electric shock]]s

* [[Suffocation]]<ref>http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/knowTortureMethods</ref>

== Controversy ==
It is a matter of dispute whether it serves any valid purpose to distinguish between degrees or levels of torture. To some opponents, "torture is torture" and should always be prohibited. The US maintains that its [[coercive interrogation]] techniques are not "[[torture]]". President [[George W. Bush]] vetoed the [[McCain Amendment]], which was intended to tighten the definition of torture.

The signatories to the [[Geneva Convention]] <ref>http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm</ref> in 1949 defined relative classes of persons who may be considered "prisoners". The Bush administration has classified [[terrorist]]s as [[unlawful combatant]]s not associated with any signatory power and maintain previous international conventions have not addressed this classification.

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/14/2devos.pdf?rd=1 Mind the Gap: Purpose, Pain, and the Difference between Torture and Inhuman Treatment] by Christian M. De Vos

[[Category:Barbaric practices]]

Torture

2007-05-23T18:45:47Z

Robledo: Subbed

Talk:Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2007-05-23T18:21:00Z

Robledo: Need a better reference, Ed.

== Murder rate ==
Have you checked that reference, Ed? It points to: Manfred E. Kober, "Homosexuality: Degeneracy, Debility, or Disease?" '''class notes, p. 1'''. That's exceptionally weak stuff - you really need to find the study Kober used before asserting that.

The factor of 15 seems....um....counter-intuitive, too. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 14:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

The Ramones

2007-05-21T21:32:40Z

Robledo: Subbed

'''The Ramones''' were a four-member [[New York]] [[punk]] band formed in 1975. All taking the adopted surname of "Ramone," original members included Joey, Johnny, Tommy, and Dee Dee Ramone. Tommy was replaced by Mark Bell of the New York art-punk group The Voidoids, who became Marky Ramone. Dee Dee left the band in the mid 1980s, and was replaced by C.J. Ramone.

Songs were typically introduced with a simple count of "1-2-3-4!" The band played extremely fast, and with minimal ostentation. This set the stage for future punk acts, who took cues from the Ramones' utilitarian approach. Early on, the band's sets were rarely longer than 30 minutes, but they extended as songwriting improved.

The band's members varied widely in their personal philosophies: Joey was a [[hippie]], whereas Johnny was a [[Republican]] ex-marine. In one instance, Johnny Ramone forced the retitling of "Bonzo Goes To Bitburg," having taken exception to its lambasting of popular American president [[Ronald Reagan]]. The song was eventually released as "My Brain Is Hanging Upside Down." The band used these differences constructively to generate a drive and energy that managed to transcend their sound's apparent simplicity.

Later in their career, the Ramones made [[surf music|surf-themed]] and [[psychedelia|psychedelic]] records, as well as developing a heavier, more [[heavy metal|metallic]] sound. They also featured in the film ''Rock'n'Roll High School'' (1979). Despite these new directions, they never abandoned their endearing no-nonsense approach and today are among the best-loved of all American bands, regularly placing highly in listener polls. <ref>http://www.actsofvolition.com/archives/2002/january/thebest49bands</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Bands|Ramones, The]]

User talk:Dpbsmith

2007-05-21T20:57:36Z

Robledo:

Older material:
*[[User_talk:Dpbsmith/archive1]]

----
I need your help. Can you come to [[Category talk:Articles with unsourced statements]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

==Timing==

Exactly the edit I was making. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:AFD_False_Jesii&diff=123930&oldid=123929] Thanks for helping to tidy up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Church of Jesus_Christ of Latter-day Saints==
Thanks for adding the categories back.[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&curid=2606&diff=124556&oldid=124447]] I agree, those categories are not redundant. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Tea and Sympathy? ==

I've noticed that you are very good at making clear points without offending anyone, so I am requesting that you at least check out [[Square root]] and [[Scientific Revolution]], especially the latter, and tell me what you think [my course of action should be] sometime, on their talk pages or mine. Thanks in advance, [[User:Human|Human]] 15:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey, thanks for the help and participation. I think SqR is close to being a good file now. It's so much better to have more voices involved, I think. Sci Rev, however... man. I should just stay away from these moated files. Rschlafly (Roger?) told me that the creationist textbook I quoted (fairly, too) was biased and full of myths. Well, I knew that, but not in the way Rschlaughly thinks! I suspect the only solution would be a good, real article written in a sandbox, followed by a revert war and subsequent banning of yours truly.

:Anyway. I found a new mess ;) But it's not war bait. [[Musical Instruments]] should redirect to the singular (IMO), not vice versa. And [[Musical Instruments Master List]] is redundant and proving it. One links to [[flute]], the other to [[flutes]]. The two articles are both floating out there semi-independently, with "trees" being built off them with no rhyme or reason (or melody either!). It's going to be work combining them and any split files linked from them, but I think it would be worth it.

:By the way, I seem to have my own set of internal "wiki rules", like article titles always being singular and such. Of course, this site has no standards or manual of style other than what immigrants from WP bring with them (I think I have personally bolded 200 article title first uses!). So, thanks again, and if you want to hep with that music thing (I saw you had worked on both files) that would be great! [[User:Human|Human]] 21:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Paradigms and Sympathy==

Can you take a glance at [[Paradigm shift]]? I gotta go to work, can't finish it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the clarification of the Scientology article. It's been giving me problems.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 18:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

And thanks again...--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unitarian==
I don't understand what you mean about the quote. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

==AFSC==

I have re-done the article under the correct heading. Thanks for your help. I don't know how to delete the original article though - can you help? Thanks.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not quite sure what the point was, then, of going through the business of what is legitimate to copy and under what rules... I could certainly rewrite it, but it would essentially be a rephrasing of what's there, though probably somewhat more concise. That, in the end, seems to be a dodgy way round the copyright rules, since AFSC is the best source on their own work. It seems a worthy subject, suitably encyclopedic, and links to the Religious Society of Friends article to expand it. Let me know when you've considered what I've said here, and if necessary I will rewrite.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:43, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:The point is that AFSC only permits exact copying of all of the material. If Conservapedia is happy with keeping ''it in its exact present form, exactly as written by AFSC,'' then everything is fine. If Conservapedia wants the page to be open to editing and changing, then it's not fine to use the AFSC article as a starting point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Well I have rewritten the article and have it saved as a document to use if necessary. I rewrote the first and last sections to add a better historical context, and left the middle sections - the mission statement and values sections - as they were, with the statement about copying. If you want me to post that, I can. I'll leave it until tomorrow to give people a chance to decide what to do about it. However, the point about rewriting is that there is no other real source for information that isn't taken from AFSC. I have rewritten it in a way that does not directly copy but uses the information, and I think that would be acceptable to the AFSC if it's acceptable to Conservapedia.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 15:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This discussion is probably better continued at [[Conservapedia:AFD American Friends Service Commission]]; I've copied your comments there. (I'm sure there are other sources for information about AFSC than their site, by the way...)[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==I dont Understand==
Why did you right that huge article on the Univeristy of Wiscosin Madison on my talk page? i am not mad, i read it but what was the point you were goin for? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

yes cheers!! --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks, fella ==

Surprised it lasted a whole hour. Is "Fair and Balanced" copyrighted by Fox? It'd make a great motto for this place - how's your Latin? ;) --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== image comment ==

your Earlycolleges2.jpg‎ would be better off as a gif - it would be tiny, and have no jpg artifacts. If you want I'll re-create it and upload it. Oh, if I go to do that I'd better have the dates to work with so I don't screw it up. Or of course, you can do it. Thanks! (PS, I like the slowly growing Ivy League tree) [[User:Human|Human]] 20:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nice work on the college timeline! Awesome! I'd like to put that on the front page sometime if is legible in a thumb-size version.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
==Thanks==
Thanks for the kudos - it's super-high praise coming from you - I've always been impressed with your contributions and the way you conduct yourself here.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Racist edit summary ==

Mr./Mrs/Miss Smith I object to your offensive and racist comment concerning your edit of [[Stevens Institute of Technology]]. I know there are differences between US and UK usage and it is generally accepted that appropriate spelling be applied depending on the subject matter. While US spelling was appropriate to the article, your edit summary was offensive to many British people. Let us not forget that the UK has been one of the greatest supporters of America in recent years. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 18:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::(In ''most'' years, except for some unpleasantness in the late 1700s and early 1800s). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Apologies for any offense. It was tongue-in-cheek. I have a streak of Anglophilia and not infrequently use British spellings by accident. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:50, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:''Racist?????'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:50, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::"vile Limey" ![[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 18:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The British consider themselves to constitute a race? I didn't know that... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Encyclopedias are meant to be educational.[[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 18:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Limeophobe... :P --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::Would you call a German a K**** or a Japanese person a J**? Of course not. But for some reason (British TV?) Americans think it's ok to call the British whatever they want. Maybe "racism" is the wrong word, it's more of an ethnic or national slur. I realize many of the people whose "groups" have not been persecuted for a while in the US tend to join in the fun of calling themselves names, and you meant no harm or insult - but, we live and learn, eh? To quote [[South Park|Stan]]: "I get it. I don't get it." Speaking as white straight male, that goes triple for me... [[User:Human|Human]] 19:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Noted. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:36, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==List of composers==

I've got a little [[Liszt]] / He never will be missed.

:-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:The music-hall singer attends a series
:Of masses and fugues and ‘ops’
:By Bach, interwoven
:With Spohr and Beethoven,
:At classical Monday Pops.
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sysop? ==

Would you be interested in becoming a sysop if you were not expected to spend your time chasing vandals? I think that you could make good use of preveledges like page move, and editing protected pages. Thanks. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 14:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm just not sure. It bothers me to keep turning it down; it seems ungracious. At the same time, I'm not sure what I'd do with sysop privileges. There's really no shortcut to dealing with people patiently, convincing them if you can, and shrugging and letting it go if you can't.

:Turning it down feels a little as if I'm pretending to be better than I really am. It doesn't mean I wouldn't ''like'' to swat people with a clue-by-four, and it doesn't mean I can always—or even often—get the patient-convincing-thing to work. I like to think I'm getting better with practice, though.

:With regard to protected pages: yeah, it's very frustrating, but if I can't convince stubborn sysop XYZ of certain things (and I can't!) then effectively I can't change the page anyway. That is, with sysop status I'd have the power to get into an edit war with sysop XYZ, but I wouldn't have the power to change the page and ''have it stay changed'' unless I can convince XYZ. And if I can convince XYZ, well, then I can "change the page" without sysop status, by convincing XYZ to change it.

:Probably best to leave things as they are. If the group wants to call me an "honorary sysop" I'd like that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:31, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Also, some sysops have an I'm a sysop you are not so your opinion doesn't matter, and if you were a sysop you wouldn't have to worry about that. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 16:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::I think most of what you just said is exactly why people here would like you to have access to those powers and privileges. It doesn't mean you have to change any of what you do, but I think there is a pretty good consensus, for instance, that you could be implicitly trusted with the 'page move' feature, which is very useful to a diligent and conscientious editor such as yourself. Likewise, the 'revert' button is a great tool in the hands of a trusted and active editor. [[User:Human|Human]] 15:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Moving Averages? ==

Are you going to include moving averages as well?
--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 11:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Fairness Doctrine ==

I know that the Fairness doctrine still isn't in effect. I just forgot to put that in the article. This is why wikis are so great. Other people can augment the articles to make them better. Thanks for your help on the article. --'''Adrian[[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 18:35, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Your reversion of my edit ==

Hello, I do disagree that accuracy trumps preferred euphemisms. Specifically, I am referring to your revert [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Anti-Flag&diff=164836&oldid=164792 here]. Could you point me to a policy that says "Courtesy calls for using the names factions prefer to use themselves." Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 23:04, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:In this case, accuracy would call for "pro-choice", as many who take the "let's keep abortion legal" position are themselves pro-life, would never consider an abortion for themselves or suggest someone else have one, and may even feel that it is immoral, but nonetheless feel that the decision should be made by the individual woman rather than the government. Thus these people are most accurately called pro-choice.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:47, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]], I don't mind your two cents, and oddly enough, half an hour ago I heard Rudy Giuliani on the radio expressing ''precisely'' this position.

::Nevertheless, I don't agree with you. Both of the phrases are dishonest. Both try to obfuscate the issue by not saying what the issue is about—abortion—and by replacing it with a vague, nice word that nobody could be against. Who could be anti-life? Who could be anti-choice?

::It's hard to condense a complex position into a short phrase, but it really seems obvious to me that if one wanted to pick short, simple names for the factions, those names would be "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." Now, before you jump all over me ''of course'' "pro-abortion" here "favoring legal abortion," not "encouraging abortion." Very few people would sincerely misunderstand this (although some might pretend to, to score debating points). And, yes, "pro-abortion" does not capture the very important question of whose choice it is. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:14, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::: I hear ya on obfuscate thing. Can't stand it when politicians refer to "a woman's right to choose". Just say it already! I think "pro-legal-abortion" and "anti-legal-abortion", while a teensy bit longer, might be the most accurate. (But I do think quite a lot of people *do* sincerely misunderstand the "pro-legal-abortion + abortion-is-a-bad-thing" position. I think Clinton used "safe, legal, and rare" to express the same idea.) Glad you're here, [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]]. Enjoy talkin' to ya.

== DpbZensmith ==
Your patience continues to astound me. *doffs cap* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Sherlock Holmes

2007-05-21T19:47:04Z

Robledo: ref

'''Sherlock Holmes''' is one of the greatest and best-known fictional characters in English literature. He was the central character in fifty-six short stories and four novels written by Sir [[Arthur Conan Doyle]]. Holmes is a "consulting detective" specializing in crime, and the stories are told by his friend and chronicler, the famous [[Dr. John H. Watson]]. Holmes is known for using his amazing art of deduction to solve what seem to be unsolvable crimes--though he would be the first to tell anyone who asked, as he frequently tells Dr. Watson, that he is only observing "elementary" facts that anyone having eyes to see, would see just as well.

== Real-life Basis ==
The character of Holmes is likely based on Joseph Bell, a medical lecturer at the University of [[Edinburgh]], [[Scotland]]. Bell emphasized the observation of detail before making a diagnosis and was a pioneer of forensic science. Conan Doyle worked for Bell as a clerk at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.<ref>Perry Internet Consulting. "Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Joseph Bell." [http://www.siracd.com/work_bell.shtml The Chronicles of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle]. 2007. Retrieved May 19, 2007.</ref>

== Background ==
Of Holmes' early life and family, Conan Doyle said but little, though many dedicated fans have attempted to supply the details. Christopher Morley, founder of the first Sherlock Holmes fan club, "The Baker Street Irregulars,"<ref name=Morley>Authors unknown, "[http://www.sherlockian.net/societies/index.html Societies]," ''[http://www.sherlockian.net/ Sherlockian.net]''. Retrieved April 20, 2007.</ref> estimated the date of Holmes' birth at January 6, 1854.<ref name=World>Authors unknown, "[http://www.sherlockian.net/world/index.html The World of Holmes and Watson]," ''[http://www.sherlockian.net/ Sherlockian.net]''. Retrieved April 20, 2007.</ref>

Sherlock Holmes is the younger by seven years of two brothers. The other brother, [[Mycroft Holmes]], has a reputation for having as much power of observation and deduction as does his brother Sherlock. But instead of being a consulting detective, Mycroft is a sort of minister-without-portfolio in Her Majesty's government ([[Victoria of the United Kingdom]])--and in fact Watson observes that "occasionally he ''is'' the British government."<ref name=Mycroft>Authors unknown, "[http://www.sherlockian.net/world/mycroft.html The Brother of the Detective]", ''[http://www.sherlockian.net/ Sherlockian.net]''. Retrieved April 20, 2007.</ref>

Speculation as to the full extent, and the pedigree, of Holmes' family abounds. However, only Mycroft Holmes, which Conan Doyle specifically mentions, may be considered a canonical relative of his.

The one love of Holmes' life was [[Irene Adler]], whom he called ''The'' Woman. Holmes never married.<ref name=World/>

Sherlock Holmes lived at 221b Baker Street in London.<ref name=World/> When he was not being a consulting detective, Holmes could be found playing his violin, or taking [[cocaine]], an addiction that he never conquered.<ref>First fully disclosed in ''The Sign of Four'', Holmes injected "a seven-per-cent solution."[http://www.siracd.com/work_h_cocaine.shtml]</ref>

== Original short stories and novels ==

The first Holmes story, ''A Study in Scarlet'', was published in 1887. In it, Sherlock meets Dr. Watson for the first time.

Interestingly, Doyle actually killed Holmes off in ''His Last Bow'', but due to the outcry of his readers he brought him back.

One of the most widely read stories--and perhaps the one most often adapted into [[motion picture|film]]--is ''The Hound of the Baskervilles''.

== Allusions to Holmes by other authors ==
Sherlock Holmes greatly influenced other writers of detective stories. Some authors have written their own Holmes books. Larry Millett is one. These extra-canonical works fall into three broad categories:

# Further adventures of Sherlock Holmes in the Victorian and Edwardian periods in which he lived. These include hypothetical stories that have Holmes investigating such real-life criminals as [[Jack the Ripper]], and at least one story (''[[The Seven Percent Solution]]'') in which Watson prevails upon Holmes to consult [[Sigmund Freud]] for help with his cocaine addiction.
# Adventures of Sherlock Holmes after he somehow finds himself in the late twentieth century after someone--usually Professor Moriarty--has had him cryogenically preserved against his will. In this same category one can include the adventures of amnesiacs who ''become'' Sherlock Holmes because of their own obsessions with the canonical works.
# Adventures of other putative members of Holmes' family. In this category also fall stories that have canonical characters behaving out-of-character.<ref name=Vlad>At least one writer of horror and [[science fiction]] has even suggested that Holmes is the nephew of [[Count Dracula]], also known as [[Vlad the Impaler]], through Vlad's brother [[Radu the Handsome]], on the theory that Vlad and Radu ''both'' became [[vampire]]s. See Fred Saberhagen, ''The Holmes-Dracula File'', Tor Books, 1978, ISBN 0812523849</ref>

== Effect on modern culture ==
Recently a movement has sprung up to place a plaque on this residence, this although Holmes was a fictional character. Several films and parodies have been made based on him as well. One such parodie is Sheerluck Holmes and the Golden Ruler from [[VeggieTales]].

== Copyright issues ==
The complete body of Sherlock Holmes' work is not yet in the public domain. The last canonical collection, ''The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes'', is still under [[copyright]] in the [[United States]]. This copyright will expire between 2016 and 2023, as per the terms of the [[Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act]] of 1998.<ref name=ASU>Dennis S. Karjala, ''[http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/ Opposing Copyright Extension, Protecting the Public Domain],'' [[Arizona State University]], March 8, 2007. Retrieved April 20, 2007.</ref> The Estate of Dame Jean Conan Doyle owns the remaining US copyrights.<ref name=Copyright>Authors unknown, "[http://www.sherlockian.net/acd/copyright.html Copyright]," ''[http://www.sherlockian.net/ Sherlockian.net]''. Retrieved April 20, 2007.</ref>

However, copyrights in [[Canada]] are already expired (since 1980), as are copyrights in the [[United Kingdom]] (expired 2000).<ref name=Copyright/>

== Portrayals of Holmes ==
Many different actors have portrayed Sherlock Holmes in a variety of [[motion picture]] and [[television]] projects. Perhaps the two actors who portrayed Holmes most often were:

# [[Basil Rathbone]], who portrayed Holmes in several films set in the middle twentieth century, when the films were made.
# [[Jeremy Brett]], who portrayed Holmes in adaptations, produced by [[John Hawkesworth]], of all four novels and fifty of the fifty-six short stories. Brett died before Hawkesworth could complete his grand project of adapting all of the Sherlock Holmes stories for [[television]]. Critics regard Brett's portrayal as the most definitive and realistic portrayal of Holmes ever made.

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:fictional characters]]

Feminazi

2007-05-21T18:14:00Z

Robledo: More sensible def. - binned the idea that it implies they're wreaking Nazi-esque havoc on society.

'''Feminazi''' is a pejorative term applied to radical members of the [[feminist movement]]. Popularized by radio pundit [[Rush Limbaugh]], it suggests they possess a ruthless determination to achieve their goals.<ref>"The term comes from feminists who acted militantly and were seen as people who were going to make you accept them no matter what. The same people who shoved feminism down your throat if you wanted to hear it or not." [http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index.php?qid=20070318113655AArc5mM&show=7]</ref> Whilst it is possible to criticize Limbaugh for drawing such a facile analogy, it is perhaps best regarded as an attempt at [[Exaggeration for comic effect|exaggeration for comic effect]].

==Notes==
<references/>
[[category:political terms]]

Concentration camp

2007-05-20T22:19:01Z

Robledo:

A '''concentration camp''' is a guarded compound where political prisoners are detained. The term orginated during the [[Boer War]],<ref>1900–05, applied orig. to camps where noncombatants were placed. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concentration%20camp]</ref> but has become synonymous with the death camps of [[Nazi Germany]] and, to a lesser extent, the [[gulag]]s of the [[Soviet Union]].

[[Auschwitz]], for example, achieved [[murder]] on an industrial scale. During [[World War II]], 1.5 million people were systematically starved, [[torture]]d and murdered there.<ref>http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/31</ref> Although [[Hitler]] was primarily focused on the extermination of the [[Jews]], [[Christian]]s, [[Gypsy|gypsies]], [[Slavs]], [[homosexuals]], and [[Communism|communists]] also met with similar fates in the Nazi camps.

The Soviet gulags were forced labour camps, mainly in the remote regions of [[Siberia]] and the Far North. By 1934, the gulags held several million inmates (political prisoners and ordinary criminals alike) and the Soviet economy benefited considerably from this vast pool of [[slave]] labour. Conditions were brutal: prisoners received insufficient food and clothing to cope with the long working hours and severe weather, resulting in high death rates from exhaustion and disease. <ref>http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/gula.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]

Slippery slope

2007-05-17T20:50:42Z

Robledo: Tweaked intro: removed redundant explanation & reinforced its lack of validity.

A "'''slippery slope'''" argument is a common rhetorical device which suggests that a seemingly innocent small action will lead inevitably to a disasterous result. An argument of this form is '''invalid''' as there is no necessary logical connection between its premise and its conclusion. Indeed, it barely has any formal structure beyond if p, then q. Whilst it is therefore a [[logical fallacy]], its emotive appeal remains a depressingly effective way of convincing those who don't know their ''modus ponens'' from their elbow.

Examples:
*If we allow this increase in administrative fees, soon tuition will double!
*If we don't stop the terrorists in Iraq, they'll invade Maine next!
*If we send in 100,000 troops, the next thing you know we'll be in a quagmire like Vietnam!
*If we let gays get married, soon men will want to marry their kitchen appliances!
*You are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the presence of a pool table in your community.... I say that any boob can take and shove a ball in a pocket. And I call that sloth, the first big step on the road to the depths of degraday—I say, first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle! An' the next thing ya know, your son is playin' for money in a pinch-back suit. And list'nin to some big out-a-town Jasper hearin' him tell about horse-race gamblin'. One fine night, they leave the pool hall, headin' for the dance at the Arm'ry! Libertine men and scarlet women, and ragtime, shameless music that'll grab your son and your daughter with the arms of a jungle animal instinct: mass-steria!<ref>Willson, Meredith (1957), "Trouble," from ''The Music Man''</ref>

==Usage and history==

While examples of usage in the modern, metaphorical sense can be found in the early 1900s, its use as a common element in American political rhetoric emerged in the 1970s and gathered momentum in the 1980s. It does not seem to have had any specific connection to any single issue. Its first appearance in a New York Times article title was in 1969, "Russia and China Edge Down a Slippery Slope." Headline examples from the 1980s include "On the Slippery Slope To Another Vietnam," "Italy's Communists on Slippery Slope," "The Cheap Dollar's Slippery Slope," etc.

In a 2002 analysis, WIlliam Safire wrote:
:The key task of the phrasedick is to find earliest uses of ["slippery slope"] in its present sense of "a course that leads inexorably to disaster." The OED tracks it to a 1951 novel, but new retrieval technology lets us do better than that.... we have this 1857 use from Chambers' Journal: "When the educated person of the middle class is reduced to pennilessness... what but this gives him the desire to struggle again up the ''slippery slope'' of fortune?"

:In both of these citations, the meaning is closer to "the greasy pole...." The current sense... probably surfaced in the early 20th century, possibly in an article by a writer in a 1909 Quarterly Review, published in London: "the first step down that ''slippery slope'' at the bottom of which lies a parliamentary government."
::—William Safire, 2002<ref>Safire, William, "On Language: A phrase that is the thin edge of a wedge." ''The New York Times, April 2002, p. E24. Safire himself was the author of a political essay that appeared in the Times April 23, 1981, p. A23, with the title ''Down the Slippery Slope.</ref>

==Quotations illustrating use==
===Literal===

:Even when I was on this mare, she would poise herself on the top of a block of granite, with her four feet close together in the manner of a goat and she leaped across crevasses of unknown depth after having to go down a slippery slope on one side, and when, on the other, she had nothing to jump upon except steeply-inclined blocks of stone.—"Himalayan Ponies," ''The New York Times,'' March 14, 1875, p. 4

:They stood, who saw the future come
:On through the fight’s delirium!
:They smote and stood, who held the hope
:Of nations on that slippery slope
:Amid the cheers of Christendom.
::Will Henry Thompson (1888), "The High Tide at Gettyburg"<ref>Thompson, Will Henry (1888), [http://www.bartleby.com/248/995.html The High Tide at Gettyburg], in Stedman, Edmund Clarence (ed) (1900), ''An American Anthology, 1787–1900''</ref><ref>The poem made an appearance in the ''Boston Daily Globe,'' May 30, 1903, p. 6, as no. 671 in a series of "Poems You Ought To Know." On August 27, 1903, p. 6 the Globe published some correspondence stating that it first appeared in ''The Century,'' July, 1888</ref>

===Metaphorical===
:It is not with them we are concerned: they will not be taught or reformed; so, they will go down the steep and slippery slope on which the heartless move, to perdition!
::—Bernard O'Reilly, 1878<ref>O'Reilly, Bernard ("Rev. Bernard O'Reilly, L.D.") (1883) ''The Mirror of True Womanhood, A Book of Instruction for Women in the World,'' 2nd Edition, Dublin, M. H. Gill and Son, "Reprinted from the Thirteenth American Edition." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0tteeqHbx_PA4OUD&id=RZcDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=%22steep+and+slippery+slope%22&as_brr=1&ie=ISO-8859-1 p. 136]. The Thirteenth American Edition was published in 1878 by Peter F. Collier, New York.</ref>

:Is there one among us who is tempting a brother man to dishonesty, to drink, to lust; who is pushing some thoughtless girl down the steep and slippery slope which ends--we know where? Then let him stop and listen, not to me, but to Christ.
::George Jackson (1903), ''The Teachings of Jesus''<ref>Jackson, George ("The Rev. George Jackson, B.A.") (1903), ''The Teachings of Jesus,'' Project Gutenberg [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11580/11580.txt Ebook #11580]</ref>

:The cry for the rates in addition to the taxes has been going up from the clerical for years. But they were warned by the late Archbishop of Canterbury<ref>Presumably a reference to Frederick Temple (1821-1902)</ref> not to attempt it, for as surely as they succeeded they would lose their control of their sectarian schools. They would be on the "slippery slope," he said, in a characteristic phrase. However, they have taken the plunge, and the Education Acts of 1902 and 1903 are the results.
::—John Clifford, 1905<ref>"Clifford, John (190-) ("The Rev. John Clifford, D.D."), "Passive Resistance in England and Wales." ''The North American Review,'' 1905, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0mtYjU29qkWCiIvihryzCSI&id=sF0CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA436&lpg=PA436&dq=%22slippery+slope%22&as_brr=1#PPA436,M1 p. 436]</ref>

:We cannot give up any portion of our claim until the question of interallied debts has been settled. We have the right and duty to guarantee ourselves against the possibility of a diminution of our claim by the international financiers.... If today Germany obtained any remission of her debt she would profit.... It was by far the wisest policy to hold fast at the top of that slippery slope."
::—French premier Raymond Poincaré, Nov. 16, 1923<ref>James, Edwin L. (1923), "French Premièr Retorts," ''The New York Times,'' November 17, 1923, p. 1</ref>

==Slope to perdition==
The modern phrase, used seriously in a political or social context is simply ''slippery slope.'' The phrase "slippery slope to perdition" is also seen, but is usually ironic, as in a recent book on programming:
:A parser that writes code, even if the code is only an occasional semicolon, seems like the beginning of a slippery slope to perdition. Pretty soon the Maple interface will behave like the Evil Empire's flagship word-processor, which tries to write for its unfortunate users.<ref>O'Farrell, Anthony Gilbert (2005), ''Introduction to Maple Programming,'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0954426940&id=a6uuImAJBF4C&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=%22slippery+slope+to+perdition%22&num=100&sig=ZaqfaLy1hEVBih-K8jVic8UOjHo p. 56]</ref>
The 1800s provide examples of serious rhetoric using the phrase "slope to perdition." Sometimes the slope is "slippery;" in other cases the word is not used but the context ("headlong slope to perdition") implies it. An example from 1837:
:There are points where the Christian must always stand on guard. His danger is seldom found in gross offenses... but in small indulgences, and weak compliances, where conscience rather doubts, than condemns. These gradually draw him nearer and nearer to the world, till the line of separation is lost. Many a Christian has glided down this slope to perdition.<ref>Osler, Edward (1837), ''Church and King," Smith, Elder and Co., London, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0TsM-spLESANuCZ4&id=AScBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22slope+to+perdition%22 p. 13]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Non Causa Pro Causa]]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

Talk:Bertrand Russell

2007-05-15T23:59:39Z

Robledo: fixed

I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's "liberal bias." For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.

The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree

*''hope they have given the world''
::LOL. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism. harmlesstree
*''reminiscent? ''
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The Bolshevics had not killed 50 million from 1917 - 1920. When I say, or Russell says, the Bolshevic state was reminiscent of the TSARist, I and he, are only going on what occured from 1917 - 1920. Do you understand this? I am commenting on Russell's tract the Theroy and Practice of Bolshevism, which he wrote in 1920. Do you understand the fact that he is not aware of the mass killings of Stalin because they have not happened yet? He was aware of the killings and despotic government the Bolshevics had erected, which he attacked. This government reminded him of the TSARiST one. He wrote," Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work." Look the whole point of this post was to clear Russell's name, by exposing the slander that was placed on conservapedia. I have done that, at least if one is fair minded. harmlesstree

RobS,

Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&diff=66867&oldid=66842 that quote]
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.

Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Right. Good way to wiggle out of an argument. The Bolsheviks just crushed democracy, broke the hereditary lineage of the monarchy by murdering the Royal family, but aren't responsible for what they wrought afterwards. Sounds like Marxist reasoning. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

And a craven refusal to acknowledge your error, RobS. Bravo.

harmlesstree,

Do not attempt to debate with this man. Stick to your guns - do not attempt to explain, clarify or expand upon the charge of misrepresentation. Defy him to prove you wrong and he disappears. That (tragically) is the very most you can expect from him.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bertrand Russell

2007-05-15T23:41:35Z

Robledo: RobS' craven refusal to admit to error - the saga continues...

Talk:Bertrand Russell

2007-05-15T21:04:20Z

Robledo:

I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's "liberal bias." For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.

The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree

*''hope they have given the world''
::LOL. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism. harmlesstree
*''reminiscent? ''
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

RobS,

Given that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&diff=66867&oldid=66842 that quote]
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.

Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bertrand Russell

2007-05-15T21:03:50Z

Robledo: Behave yourself, RobS - the case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.

I find it ironic that this site uses Wikipedia's presentation of Bertrand Russell as an anti-Bolshevic as an example of Wikipedia's "liberal bias." For it is your site that is distorting the truth, as it has done with other things, with respect to Bertrand Russell's position on Bolshevism. You have taken out of context a statement from Russell's preface to The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, and used it to make it look as if Russell was supporter of the Bolsheviks'. However, it is clear if you read on past the statement you quoted that he is not, especially if you read on past the preface to the first section, which I cited in the article about Russell as evidence as his feelings towards of the Bolsheviks, which you deleted.

The feelings expressed in this passage are the proper expressions of what Russell felt towards the Bolsheviks then, and especially after 1920 with the rise of Stalinism, not the statements you quoted. After all, it was Bertrand Russell who indicated that a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, prior to their acquiring nuclear weapons, would be morally more justifiable than the alternative of attacking them after they had acquired them. His expressions of fondness for the Bolsheviks in the preface are because of the hope they have given the world: people can rise up and throw off the chains of economic oppression that are draining the life out of them: it was done in Russia. However, if you read on you will see that he vehemently opposes their ideology and their methods. His tract is polemic against them. Russell saw the same thing that Orwell saw in Spain: the Communist party was wolf in sheep's clothing. But Russell saw it very early on, before the rise of Stalinism. His predictions about what would ultimately happen in Russia were spot on. I have pasted most of the preface that you distorted onto the page, plus the beginning of section 1. You will want to edit this long post. But, please, do not against attempt to portray Bertrand Ruussell as a supporter of the Bolsheviks' or the Soviet Union. harmlesstree

*''hope they have given the world''
::LOL. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL, right. You are looking at the Russian Revolution from the vantage point of 2007 - that is through 90 years of history that socialists/communists and the working class of 1917 were not privy to. All they were privy to was that there was a successful communist/socialist revolution - not the horrors of Stalinism, which would not occur for years. Most were probably not even aware of the violent and despotic tendencies of the Bolsheviks. They were aware of the fact that there was an apparently successful working class revolution, which there was. The Russian Revolution was a popular revolution which the Bolsheviks ceased control of, and began to implement their Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. They took control of the Soviets, which were independent democratically administered councils, and made them arms of the state, while silencing all opposition. But the preponderance of people did not know this. All they knew was there was a successful revolution, in which a socialist society was being constructed. This, as Russell properly states, gave them hope. However, Russell did not share these hopes beyond the fact that there was was a successful revolution, and he says so after the preface. It was clear to him after visiting Russia that there was not a socialist society being constructed. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' were constructing a despotic state that was reminiscent of the one that preceded it; it was an illusion, and Russell knew it. He condemned it, and the Marxist-Lenist dogma it was founded upon. And that brings us back to my primary point: Bertrand Russell vehemently opposed Bolshevism. harmlesstree
*''reminiscent? ''
::Did the Czar exterminate 50 million? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

RobS,

Give that it was you who placed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Bertrand_Russell&diff=66867&oldid=66842 that quote]
in the article, and given that harmlesstree has provided [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm compelling evidence] that it grossly misrepresents Russell's position, then I'd keep my fool mouth shut if I were you.

Indeed, a more gracious person than yourself might even have been moved to ''thank'' harmlesstree for correcting your crass error. The case for your immediate defenestration grows stronger with each passing day.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Homo sapiens

2007-05-13T23:01:18Z

Robledo: Capitalization, fixed ref + sub-section

Humans, or human beings, are classified by biologists as [[primates]] belonging to the mammalian species, [[Homo]] sapiens, ''homo'' meaning "same", and ''sapiens'' meaning "wise", or "understanding" in the taxonomological class Hominidae (the great apes). Some researchers claim humans have possibly been around for approximately 130,000 years<ref>Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117 (2): 103-12.</ref>. Humans are characterized by highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species than is known. Humans now inhabit every continent including [[Antarctica]], with a total population of over 6.5 billion as of 2007. Humans have been known to live to ages of just over 100 years.

== The origins of Man according to creationists ==

A large number of [[Christian|Christians]], Jews, Muslims and [[Creationism|creationists]] have postulated that Homo sapiens were created in [[God|God's]] image on day 6 of [[creation]].<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2313</ref>
:''And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'' ([[Genesis]] 1:26-27)

:''And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'' (Genesis 2:7)

The first man was Adam.
:''And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.'' (Genesis 2:15)
The first woman, Eve, was made from one of his ribs.
:''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.'' (Genesis 2:22)

Because of the sinful nature of man about 2350 B.C [[God]] sent a [[Great Flood]] which annihilated all the people on Earth except for the then 600 year old [[Noah]] and his family. All people alive today are descendants of [[Family of Noah|Noah and his family]].

==The origins of Man according to evolution==

In more recent times, [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] have postulated that humans have been around in anatomically modern form for approximately 130,000 years<ref>Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117 (2): 103-12.</ref>. One version of the this theory maintains Homo sapiens evolved from Homo ergaster or erectus. Humans' closest living relative is the chimpanzee.

==The origins of Man in other religions==

According to Hindus, humans were created from a part of the cut up body of Purusha.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

[[Misanthropy]]

[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:Creations of God]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

Talk:Marijuana

2007-05-13T22:32:06Z

Robledo: /* Appraisal of its effects/consequences */ ?!!

Is this entry a joke? "Favored by many liberals, especially hippies"? Yes, I can guess I can envision some liberals liking marijuana, but that doesn't mean that they all, or even most of them favor it conclusively. And do hippies really even exist anymore? It seems to be an antiquated/obsolete/broad term. And I seem to recall our President having used marijuana and cocaine. Hrm. Essentially, this entry strikes me as a hilarious joke. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:17, 10 March 2007 (EST)
:Where are the citations for this article? Marijauna was not illegal until the Roosevelt administration. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]] 13:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Where to start? Firstly Marijuana, or more correctly, Cannabis, is a Schedule I drug in the United States because all Tetrahydrocannabinols aside from synthetic THC are Schedule I. Many conservatives and liberals alike favor the legalization of Cannibis, and I agree with Cracker about the term hippie being rather antiquated. The effects of Cannabis can include the effects listed, along with others. It is no longer considered a gateway drug by the majority of researchers, this label is primarily only used by those opposed to its legalization. It's medicinal use is still hotly debated, but I think that the current information on its use in medicine is rather limited and should be expanded. Lastly, why does in matter if Clinton smoked marijuana? This seems to be gossip at most. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It is well-known and well-sourced that legalization of Marijuana is a political position favored almost exclusively by liberals. Hmm, do you think perhaps they want to legalize it because they smoke it? --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm pretty sure NORML which is a advocacy group for the legalization of Marijuana includes many conservatives and Libertarians in its ranks. And almost all Libertarians seek the legalization of Marijuana on the basis of principle not because they're users, after all less government interference is what they seek. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Ron Paul, Larry Elder and William Buckley are not liberal.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 00:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny how the source given for liberals favoring legalizing marijuana is about Libertarians supporting its legalization. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I definitely take the Libertarian view on this issue. If tobacco is going to be legal, this should be too. Needless regulation. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Hooray for another supporter. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Illegal drug ==
Who keeps calling it an "illegal drug"? It is possible to get federal approval for using it, under the Controlled Substances Act. Furthermore, many states allow it under medical marijuana laws. Yes, the drug is commonly abused, and sold illegally, but it is not an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:In nearly every concievable use, it is an illegal drug. Lots of illegal things can be done by people with a permit/approval, but that doesn't change the fact that they are almost always illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That is just not true. There are 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California. There are some in other states as well.
:: The existence of illegal use does not make it an illegal drug. A lot of the Viagra use is derived from black-market purchases, but you would not call Viagra an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How about "illegal in most states", or "legal in some states with prescription"; or "has been decriminalized in some states". Something to that effect. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California, as opposed to California's population of 33.8 million. The U.S. kills hundreds, if not thousands, of death row inmates every year, in a perfectly legal manner. This doesn't mean that wanton killing is legal. And I really think it's usually considered an illegal drug. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Technically it is a "Controlled Substance" not an "Illegal Drug." That way some people can use it, but if you don't have the proper authorization, it is illegal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I think we can agree upon that wording? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Perfect. And blatantly factual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Actually, despite legalization by some states for medicinal purposes or private use in small quantities, it still remains a controlled substance by the federal government and is not allowed for medicinal or recreational use. Though it disappoints me, it still remains more or less illegal in the U.S. ([http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/terminal_illness_is_no_excuse.html see here]) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Angel Raich ==
This section has been copied from wikiepedia and so I am removing it not only as a copyright violation but this is conservapedia and just brionging stuff from wikipedia defeats the point, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 13:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

DOES NOBODY HERE OWN A DICTIONARY? "Colloquial" means "slang" or "casual speech." Marijuana is or is not an illegal drug, but it is not "colloquially known" as one. Marijuana is "colloquaily known"
as pot, grass, weed, etc.

== Appraisal of its effects/consequences ==
RobS is on one, ''again''. He just reverted this eminently sensible addition below. Does anyone else feel that this honest appraisal ''promotes'' its use?

:In low doses, marijuana induces mild euphoria followed by a sense of general relaxation and well-being. Users often report heightened perceptions of music, colours and taste. Its effects at these doses are best likened to those of moderate alcohol consumption, but without the same degree of motor impairment and without the disinhibition towards aggression. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to start a fight when stoned.

:In higher doses, marijuana can induce mild to moderate hallucenations. Unlike the direct distortions of sense perception produced by [[LSD]] or [[psilocybin]], these hallucenations are mostly "internal," i.e. they are simply functions of the user's hyper-stimulated imagination. There is a small risk of adverse side-effects and their likelihood increases with the dosage. They range from the merely inconvenient (short-term memory loss), through to the somewhat unnerving (paranoia/anxiety) and finally to the downright unpleasant (overwhelming disorientation/vomiting).

:Chronic misuse of marijuana has been widely recognised as a significant risk factor for those with a predisposition towards developing various mental illnesses, particularly [[schizophrenia]]. Even for those without such a predisposition, chronic misuse oftens results in the user becoming both very bored and very boring. The key seems to be remembering what the word "recreational" means and moderating one's level of use accordingly.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not going to use sales pitches to induce people to use illegal drugs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

What the sweet ____ are you on about? I simply say what it does - from direct first hand experience, I might add. Have you ever been stoned, RobS? One of the key things in teaching kids about drugs is that you need to be truthful about ''why'' people use it. If you focus purely on the negatives, then your message is flatly contradicted by a wealth of anecdotal evidence from the child's peer group. You end up looking like an idiot and being completely ignored. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Marijuana

2007-05-13T22:07:46Z

Robledo: A honest appraisal of its effects/consequences - feedback invited.

Marijuana

2007-05-13T21:57:47Z

Robledo: Appraisal of its effects/consequences

'''Marijuana''' is a [[Schedule I]] [[Controlled Substance]] in the United States of America, and it is subject to various degrees of legality in different parts of the world. It comes from the ''Cannabis'' [[plant]].

In low doses, marijuana induces mild euphoria followed by a sense of general relaxation and well-being. Users often report heightened perceptions of music, colours and taste. Its effects at these doses are best likened to those of moderate alcohol consumption, but without the same degree of motor impairment and without the disinhibition towards aggression. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to start a fight when stoned.

In higher doses, marijuana can induce mild to moderate hallucenations. Unlike the direct distortions of sense perception produced by [[LSD]] or [[psilocybin]], these hallucenations are mostly "internal," i.e. they are simply functions of the user's hyper-stimulated imagination. There is a small risk of adverse side-effects and their likelihood increases with the dosage. They range from the merely inconvenient (short-term memory loss), through to the somewhat unnerving (paranoia/anxiety) and finally to the downright unpleasant (overwhelming disorientation/vomiting).

Chronic misuse of marijuana has been widely recognised as a significant risk factor for those with a predisposition towards developing various mental illnesses, particularly [[schizophrenia]]. Even for those without such a predisposition, chronic misuse oftens results in the user becoming both very bored and very boring. The key seems to be remembering what the word "recreational" means and moderating one's level of use accordingly.

Proponents of marijuana have claimed that it has medicinal benefits although other treatments can also deliver these benefits to various ailments without hallucinations and the impairments to judgment. Some have advocated for decriminalization. <ref>[http://www.leap.cc Law Enforcement Against Prohibition]</ref>. Many members of the [[Libertarian Party]] advocate legalization. <ref>http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml</ref>

A religious or sacramental use of marijuana is reported in various cultures such as the Rastafarians or the Sadhus of India. Use of marijuana in a religious capacity is legal for members of the Native American Church, however, members must be registered with the Church and government.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Drugs]]

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-05-13T18:29:21Z

Robledo: /* Joke article? */ :)

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]

'''Note:''' an alternative version of this article is currently being written [[User:Hojimachong/Dinosaur|here]]. This is not an attempt to usurp [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

== Alternative version of the article ==

It's a bit hard to tell what's different about the alternative article. A comparison with the current article shows lots of differences, but much of that is due to some heavy editing of the current article recently. Comparing the first version of the alternative (presumably a straight copy of the then-current article) with the latest version of the alternative shows some differences, but most of them seem to have been incorporated into the current article anyway (although I haven't compared how closely the "history of dinosaur paleontology" sections match).
The other main change is the introduction, where the alternative version states matter-of-factly that the evolutionary view is based on "overwhelming scientific evidence" (which claim, as it goes on to say, creationists dispute of course). Naturally I'd object to this view being put as though it is correct.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:I am mostly happy with the current article. Given the ed staff, it's the best it'll ever get.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 02:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Have this "Evolutionary" Debate Here & Now ==
Conservative, you have never rebutted my contention that "evolutionary," used as a qualifier to the entire field of science, is nothing more than a qualifier-word designed to make scientists sound less credible. There is a branch of science called "evolutionary biology," but they do not deal with dinosaurs. If you do not properly rebut this argument, I will change the article to not use the word "evolutionary" except where appropriate. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what AmesG said regarding material he posted in regards to it's veracity:

:"I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Answers_in_Genesis]

:Do we really need users who care so little about whether their material is factual or not? Do we need users who are so pugnacious that the facts don't really matter?

:I say we cannot afford to babysit AmesG anymore. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:: Inappropriate edit here. See my reply on Andy's page. Stick to the point.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Creationary" ==

Conservative, that ''you've'' never heard the word "creationary" is not really the point, is it? That ''most'' haven't may be a point, but I dispute the relevance of that. It is perfectly legitimate in English to append standard prefixes and suffixes to words regardless of whether the resulting word has ever been used before, and "creationary" is just following that pattern.

"Creationary" is also a good balance to "evolutionary"; if the latter is acceptable, why not the former? At least it provides for consistency.

And it has in fact been in use for quite some time, and was included in a dictionary nearly 50 years ago. Please read [http://www.geocities.com/hftamke/creation.html here] for more information, including why "creationist" is not the best word to use where an adjective is required.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm down with that compromise.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I think we should not use the word "creationary" if it is not in more than one current very large dictionary. That's my two cents. I will not start an edit war about it though! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

AmesG, I don't follow. I suspect that you were objecting to the term "evolutionary", but that you'd be happy if both "evolutionary" and "creationary" are used. Is that correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: That's right. If both sides sound ridiculous, no problem.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::The terms may be uncommon, but I fail to see how they are, or make the topic sound, ridiculous. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Then I must have misspoken. Let's use them both.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 02:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Snipping apparent joke==
:However, a certain "Dr. Karl Pilkington", has used numerous reliable paleontological sources, such as "1 million years BC", by the eminent social philosopher Racquel Welch, to deduce that since dinosaurs and humans have once lived, there must be "some cross over point" where both roamed the Earth. This standpoint has gained a large amount of publicity, and is now taken more seriously than accepted extinction theory.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/ One Million Years BC] is a 1966 science fiction movie, and [http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/onemillionbc3sh.jpg Raquel Welch] was the "curvy" actress who starred in it. Karl Pilkington produces a radio show and has [http://www.pilkipedia.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page his own Wiki]. Sounds like someone was having fun. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== OK ==

Let's discuss this:
* For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur. A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting.

Has anyone in the last 100 years report seeing a dinosaur? Anyone?

* The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth."

This contradicts the section title.

* Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.[25] World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."[25] Dragons appear in the flag of Wales, and in traditional Chinese New Years' Day celebrations. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting.

What does this have to do with anything. There are a lot of cultural references to animals which don't even exist! This makes no sense.

* Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

Again, contradicts section title.

* Among those who believe in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, one popular theory is that it is a living plesiosaur.

Has anyone seen that?[[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't understand your claim that two of those points "contradict the section title". The section title is "Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting", and each of those points provide support (not proof, but support) of humans and dinosaurs coexisting at some time (or are you reading the section title as saying that they coexist ''now''?).
:I doubt that there are ''lots'' of cultural references to animals which don't exist, but the point here is that cultural references to creatures with descriptions matching dinosaurs supports the idea of dinosaurs and humans coexisting, especially when there are so many references from two continents.
:By the way, I smiled at your reference to "evil British punctunation".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You are suggesting that the cyclops existed? When a potentially simpler answer is "the ancient Greeks saw an elephant skull[http://www.henry-moore-fdn.co.uk/images/elephant_skull_0.jpg]?" You can have cultural references to something without it existing (dragons, unicorns, boogie man, fairies, etc...) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, I'm not suggesting that the cyclops existed. I didn't deny that there are ''some'' cultural references to animals that didn't exist, and I'll go further and admit that perhaps the Greeks had quite a few. But by the same token, people too readily dismiss cultural references to things they haven't otherwise heard of rather than see if there might be a basis for them. The descriptions of dragons are many and widespread, and largely consistent with descriptions of dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actually, as I understand it, the dragons that appeared in the different cultures (including English culture) wheren't actually that similiar to dinosaurs. If anything, they were more serpent like. In some cases, they were extremely different. The 'looking kindda like dinosaurs' is just the modern interpretation of dragons. Ironically, Wikipedia actually has a pretty good page on them. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 10:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::What do you mean by "serpent like"? Long and slender? Legless? Dragons seem to have had a wide variety of descriptions (which is as you'd expect if they are dinosaurs, i.e. if they are referring to a group of creatures, not a particular type of creature; dinosaurs came in a wide variety of shapes), some serpent-like but others not. Note that most of the pictures in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon Wikipedia dragon article] are not really serpent-like. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== "[S]ome descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today..." ==

The reference in a creationist journal for this statement says, "The feasibility of the idea that some dinosaurs may still be alive has a little more support, although at this time we would have to say it is not conclusive." If the creationists are saying it's not conclusive, then why is it in the article? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:Good point. I've downgraded the claim to be more consistent with the reference. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== "For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur.[15]" ==

The only sentence in ref 15 about explorers is, "And British explorer Colonel John Blashford-Snell returned from an isolated Nepalese valley in March with photos of living creatures which looked something like mammoths or extinct stegodons." Mammoths and stegodons are not dinosaurs. And the plural "explorers" implies more than one. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe you could quibble about the word "explorers" vs. "researchers" or similar, but look further down in that referenced article to the bit about Mokele-mbembe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know of many recent explorers. In most people's (and I mean most) "explorers" are the folks who went looking for "new worlds" 100s of years ago. I've done research, but never considered myself and explorer before. I shouldn't have to interpret references anyway :). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

How about replacing the sentence with "People in the Congo have reported seeing a creature they termed "mokele-mbembe," meaning "one that stops the flow of rivers." French priests translate this as "monstrous animals." Dr. Roy Mackal made an expedition to the region and recorded the Congolese descriptions of the mokele-mbembe.<ref>http://www.mokelembembe.com/</ref> (and reference 15). That's much more clear than "explorers reported seeing...," which really isn't in ref 15 anyway. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's too much irrelevant information for the space, in my opinion. The important point for this article is not what it's called and what that means, but that the ''description'' matched that of a dinosaur. Your suggestion doesn't mention that. Second, I would be happy to change it to "People in the Congo..." if it were not for the facts that it wasn't just the Congo and that a biologist has reported seeing it as well as ordinary "people" (see reference 15).
::I'm still open to suggestions on alternative wording, however.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Since you seem to claim a monopoly to the wording, what better word than explorer would you recommend? And what other researchers have observed a dinosaur? The ONLY reference to explorers in the reference is the British explorer that saw a mammoth. The "expeditions" brought back "ordinary people"'s (your words) observations, but Dr. Mackal did not observe one. ''There's '''nothing''' in the reference about explorers and dinosaurs.'' [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:How am I claiming a monopoly on the wording if I'm inviting suggestions of better wording? I'll try to do some rewording of that entire section, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My reversion of recent changes ==

The first edit that I've reverted was deletion of the comment about recent sightings, with the edit comment, "''the author has since retracted claims - see reference''". This is incorrect. The author has retracted ''one'' recent sighting, but there are still others in that article, so the statement is still correct.

The second edit removed information without any explanation. I will reinstate the minor wording changes that were also in that edit.

The third edit removed information with the edit comment, "''article discredited by scientist it quotes http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2491''". This is incorrect. First a couple of minor quibbles. The ''article'' was not discredited, so much as the ''claims'' of the article, and the the main scientist it quotes was not the one who disputed the claims, but her boss. More relevant, however, is that the claims were ''disputed''; to say that they were ''discredited'' is to put a POV on whether the disputing succeeded. Most relevant is that the claim in this (Dinosaur) article was ''not even disputed''. The claim in this article was, "''Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.''". Horner did not "discredit" ''that creationists see things this way'', and the reference cited in the edit comment did not retract the creationist claim.

The fourth edit was grammatically incorrect, but I will reword it to make it a bit closer to the edit.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html ==

This page makes a number of claims regarding evolutionary biology that I cannot verify from any other source, and they do not cite their sources. In addition they make the claim "It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically". However, there is no possible way to tell whether or not the species have remained genetically stable. The only conclusion is that the site in unreliable. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree that it doesn't cite sources. Hang fire until I've reworded that section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My reversion of recent changes (2) ==

The first edit I reverted this time had the edit comment, "''China Today is noted for "Inquirer"-like sensational stories that cannot be confirmed.''". Show me some evidence of this and I'll agree to the re-removal of that bit.

The second edit had the edit comment, "''Author of the reference claims to be the Paleontologist for the United States "Rational" Museum, which apparently does not exist.''". No, it said the "'''N'''ational" Museum, which is an [http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0919950.html alternative or former name] of the Smithsonian Institute, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Gilmore Wikipedia] and other sources confirm that Gilmore was a paleontologist there.

The third edit had the edit comment, "''Information about dragons belongs in an article on dragons.''". Sorry, but the point is that creationists see dragons as being dinosaurs. Thus it belongs here.

The fourth edit had the edit comment, "''Reference indicates that author retracted his claims about dinosaurs.''". Please don't go repeating the same changes without giving new (and valid) reasons for doing so. The same editor made this same deletion with the same basic edit comment before, which I answered above when I reverted it.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== If this is a joke, it's not that funny. ==

In my short time at Conservapedia, I've seen two 1337-speaking vandals attack (striking, among other things, my newly-made talk page!), and I've had the misfortune of seeing this article. Between the two - the vandalism and this article - I'm not sure which one is worse. I mean, I'm as conservative as the next guy (that's why I joined the site), but I'm also... errr... "college educated." There's a line between "conservative" and "creationist" that I don't think you guys really get, and it bothers me to have you creating this site in the name of all conservatives, who include me...

Let's start briefly with the content. The Loch Ness Monster is proof of the continued existence of dinosaurs? Seriously? And treating science as a "point of view" that needs to be "balanced" is obscene. Anyone who's taken science classes in any school knows that science doesn't concern itself with having a point of view, and if you believe to the contrary, honestly, you could probably find a better conspiracy theory to believe in. It strikes me that what you're working for in this article is the taking of "political correctness" to its logical extreme, that even bad science is an "opinion" that deserves "equal time." As a conservative, the idea of political correctness bothers me enough, and it should bother you, too, but I see that where being PC serves you, you're more than happy to indulge. I'd rather not dignify the rest of this article with a response.

The real weakness, though, is sourcing. Encyclopedias imply objective, factual writing. That means good academic sourcing. But, the creationist claims here are sourced to outlandishly biased one-trick-pony sites I've never even heard of before, but they all seem to have their own agenda. A basic underpinning of academic writing, as I have learned, is objective & honest use of citations. But the way you cite in this article is no better than having an article on Hillary Clinton that said, <nowiki>"Hillary would be a good president <ref>See her campaign website</ref>."</nowiki> You see the comparison? You can't support a biased statement with a biased citation just to give an illusion of objectivity: it's just my hunch, but I suspect that "AnswersInGenesis" and "CreationOnTheWeb" have a not-so-hidden agenda.

I don't know what you people are, but you're not conservatives. I'd like to contribute positively to this site, but perusing through other related articles after seeing this one, I have realized that many have fought & "died" (been blocked) for pointing out what I just did. Will I face an uphill battle in just writing in encyclopedic style? Based on this article, I would assume, "yes."-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's not a joke. What's a joke is that the atheistic agenda of evolution is treated as empirical science and creationary science is ''dismissed'' as an unreliable source, rather than actually being ''refuted''. The tactic is to argue, as you have implicitly, that "evolution is science" and is therefore totally objective. Scientists are ''not'' always totally objective, and [[physical science#[edit] Types of science|origins science]] is not empirical science]]. There is no anti-creationists ''conspiracy'', but there is a ''ruling paradigm'' that refuses to acknowledge creation as a valid alternative. Evolutionists (some of whom acknowledge their anti-theistic bias) are no less agenda-driven than creationists, and lay evolutionists who argue otherwise are the pot calling the kettle black. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

As I said, I'm a Christian, a Conservative, and an "Evolutionist" (that term's new to me too). But I've also taken science classes. Don't you think it says something that the only sources you can point to are biased niche-sources, and not anything actually serious? And the last time I checked, assuming your conclusion is bad science :-P -[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:I believe that it's you that's assuming your conclusion. You've not even bothered to explain why the sources are supposedly "biased niche-sources" and opposing sources are not, and why the sources are not "serious". Making those assertions without something to back it up is not a valid argument. And you are sort of wrong with the "biased niche-sources" anyway. The creationist sources referenced frequently cite from non-creationist sources. So what that you've taken science classes? So have the scientists who are creationists! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The scientific community has a system & a vetting process for dealing with theories, that produces thoroughly reviewed & respected articles. Can you point to any of those for your creation "science"? Can you point to an accredited university that teaches it? And don't get out of that by calling all universities "liberal": while I agree that the social science depts at most universities are fairly liberal, the science depts are not. Really, I didn't think it was necessary to prove that AnswersInGenesis is a biased niche source. Look at it, and page through the articles - it's clearly a one-issue action group, which isn't that objectively persuasive.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:There's at least two peer-reviewed creationist science journals that I know of. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the universities in the U.S. to answer that question. And even some evolutionists admit that evolution is a religion, and many universities are religiously liberal at the very least. I'm not denying that AiG has a bias; I'm claiming that evolutionists have a bias also. I can't help it if you're not persuaded by their science, including the science that they quote from evolutionists which I previously mentioned and you seem to have ignored. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is a religion!? That one's new to me, too! Where do you guys ''come'' from? Sounds like a strawman argument: you attribute it to me, and then knock it down for fun, but I never claimed it: as I said before, I'm a Christian, but a rational one. You make it sound like there's a concerted effort to push evolution. I can't imagine the reason that would be behind it. Science & truth are their own ends: science has no other agenda. Evolution simply explains life better, and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you). And, hate to tell you as well, but a peer reviewed creation science journal doesn't jump the hurdle I asked for. I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind. Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question. I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath. And so help me God, if you say "don't worry, the flood explains it all," I swear, I'm out. Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 12:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:"''That one's new to me, too!''". Hmmm, it seems that there is a lot that you don't know. Perhaps you should read up on the creation/evolution debate a bit more (and not just from the evolutionary side).
:Michael Ruse is an anti-creationist who denied that evolution was a religion, then later admitted that it is treated that way. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/ here].
:I'm also a Christian, and I'm also a rational one (well, I believe that I am, just like you believe that you are). There ''is'' a concerted effort to push evolution. Whenever anyone suggests even that students ought to consider alternatives, the evolutionists come out with guns blazing (figuratively speaking) to prevent evolution even being questioned. The reason (not that they admit it)? Because at root this is a ''spiritual'' issue. Despite you (and many others) being Christians who believe in evolution, the atheists know that the Bible and evolution are contradictory, and belief in evolution has destroyed many a Christian's faith. Demonstrating that evolution may not in fact be true is therefore undermining one of the atheists' most important weapons.
:Science has no agenda at all; it is not an intelligent being. But the ''scientists'', on the other hand, do often have agendas.
:"''Evolution simply explains life better...''". That is your ''opinion'', but given your gross ignorance of the alternative view, I wouldn't put much weight on it.
:"''...and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you)''". You've broken nothing to me; I've heard that before. And it's simply untrue. [[Physical science|Science]] was founded on a Biblical (i.e. creationist) worldview and many if not most of the early scientists were creationists. So evolution, which came later, does ''not'' underlie all of modern science. Additionally, some evolutionists have even admitted this. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/347 here], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4755/86/ here], and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5075 here].
:"''I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind.''". Huh? What makes you think that the editors of those journals haven't already made up their mind?
:"''Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question.''". Why is that?
:"''I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath.''". Who's tossing out geology? The dating methods can be tossed out because they don't stand up to scrutiny, partly because they are, in part, built on assumptions that rule out creation to start with. So using them to argue against creation is circular reasoning. And you just called thousands of scientists and other people "insane and delusional". That's a lovely way to make an argument.
:"''Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.''. I wonder if the supporters of geocentricism with all it's adjustments to accommodate the observations said the same of heliocentricism? I don't consider creation implausible at all, and I don't consider it as complicated as the hurdles that evolutionists jumps over to maintain their faith.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Philip, you truly astound me. You manage to sound so reasonable spouting the most ridiculous stuff. I am amazed that someone who seems genuinely intelligent and well spoken can truly dismiss science so readily and try to make the scientific community out to be te crackpots. One thing that truly bothers me in your arguments though is when you continue to claim that dating methods are flawed because they proceed from the assumption that creation did not exist... but this is ridiculous. You are referring to the Flood which supposedly altered the carbon ratio of the planet. Science does not assume this didn't happen. Science does not have to assume it didn't happen. The absence of an event is the default assumption. Without credible scientific evidence of a global flood that altered the carbon ratio. there is no reason to include it in the calculation. Claiming the dating methods don't stand up to scrutiny because your assumption of creationism requires it is disingenuous at best. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 09:00, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps I sound reasonable because what I'm "spouting" is not ridiculous?
:I am ''not'' dismissing science. I'm criticising the views of some (many) ''scientists''. Similarly, I'm not making the scientific community out to be crackpots; I'm pointing out that they have their own biases, their own worldviews/religions, and that these views often drive their views of origins. Yes, the same applies to me, but at least I admit it. They don't (most of the time; they do at times).
:I'm not referring ''only'' to altered carbon ratios of the flood, but yes, that is one of the things I'm referring to.
:You contradicted yourself regarding the assumptions. You first claimed that science ''doesn't'' assume this, then say that they ''do''; as the default assumption.
:What evidence for a global flood would you consider credible? It seems that you have already rejected as evidence that the vast majority of the rock on the planet is sedimentary, just as you would expect from a global flood. And that there are billions of dead things (fossils) in those sediments, just as you'd expect from a global flood. etc. etc.
:Even if it is fair to claim that assuming no flood is a fair assumption, it is still ''not'' fair to then claim that the dating methods contradict a global flood; it is still circular reasoning.
:I'm not rejecting the dating methods solely because they contradict the written historical record, but also because they have proved themselves unreliable. There are ''many'' documented cases of rocks of known age (the eruptions were witnessed) being dated incorrectly, of different methods giving inconsistent dates, and similar problems.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::There's a concept in math and science called "order of magnitude." That is, is an error in 10s of years, 100s of years, 1000s of years, 10000s of years, etc. A geologic timescale of 6000-ish years imply that gross errors in rock dating would be in 100s of years and within a few percent would be 10s of years. Sure, there are errors--science is always up for revising its measurements and making it more precise--but the order of magnitude of 10000 on a geologic timescale of millions of years is so incredibly small to be laughable. Even 1000000 years among 65 million years is about 2%. And for someone to dismiss all of geological dating because "there are errors" is intellectually dishonest (in my opinion, of course). And I've always found it interesting that some "views" of science are OK whereas others are "questionable." If people don't like science and technology, then they should get rid of their car, their manufactured clothes, the food that comes to the grocery store, their car and all medical care. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm familiar with the concept of "order of magnitude", thanks. I don't see the relevance here unless you are saying that 6000 years is just too big an adjustment for you to make.
:::I don't dismiss all of geological dating just because "there are errors". I reject it for several reasons, including (a) it contradicts the written testimony of God, (b) there are ''lots'' of examples of contradictory dates, (c) it is based on unprovable assumptions, and (d) there are very few if any examples where it has been shown to be right on rocks of known age.
:::Your "interest" in some science views being okay and some questionable ignores the difference between [[physical science#Types of science|operational and origins science]]. Your examples are the former, whereas I am rejecting the latter. No contradiction there at all. And some of those examples actually benefited from the research of creationists.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I think a huge misunderstanding here is that some people believe that once upon a time there was a entirely Christian world, then suddenly some sinner decided there was no God and he invented science to prove this.
This is of course complete and utter bull-you-know-what.

This is how it really went: the pursuit of knowledge (astronomy, mathematics) predate today's dominant religions by thousands of years, research has always been done on a global scale under many different religions, when it became possible to crosscheck their findings, these early researchers had established a peer-reviewing system, making these findings independent of any of the local religions, of course some of these findings conflicted with the beliefs of the religions, but while religions went and go, science continued to advance, one day, one branch of religion became dominant, but the researchers living inside its sphere of influence continued their work, as did their colleagues in other parts of the world, many of these researchers were religious themselves and saw the pursuit of knowledge as a way to better understand the universe and thus a way to come a little closer to understanding the divine, one day they found evidence pointing towards a very old Earth, soon they found more, and more, and more...

There findings were not always compatible with the creation-myths of the religions, but these creation-myths were not compatible with each other either...

Then one day a new movement within one of the 5 dominant religions emerged: it declared that the Earth was 6000 years old, this of course conflicted with the creation-myths of some of the other religions... and with the evidence the researchers had found.

In an effort to discredit their opponents, this movement claimed the researchers had their own religion and that the movement's religion was so much more important than any of the other religions ever had been, that thousands of years ago the first researchers had somehow forseen the emergence of this movement and had worked all this time to debunk the beliefs of the movement before it even existed, in the process these researchers had even developed methods to make sure that experiments always went their way, no matter who did them, all because they tried to ridicule the beliefs of a movement that would only come to existence centuries later...

BTW, thanks for that ban Philip, I feel like a full member now!

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: That's an interesting bit of fiction. Problems include:
:* Yes, there was a pursuit of knowledge, but science as we understand it [[Physical science#Beginnings|arose in and because of a Christian worldview]].
:* Christianity has been around by that name for 2000 years (and is a continuation of Judaism which was a continuation of the belief in the Creator, dating back to the creation of the world), whereas the peer review process has been around for what? A couple of hundred years?
:* It treats all religions as equal, and therefore as equally wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Just because some must be wrong (they can't all be right when they proclaim contradictory things), it doesn't follow that they are all wrong.
:* Belief in the Earth being around 6000 years old is not a recent, post-scientific, belief. It is what the Bible has recorded for thousands of years and in fact almost everybody thought that the age of the world was that order of magnitude until only about 200 years ago.
:I was annoyed at having to give you a ban. You were the first person I've blocked, other than people who came here solely to vandalise.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

* So what, the Arabs didn't invent algebra and the Greeks and the peoples of China and India were obviously all devout Christians?
Human curiosity is the reason behind science, religion usually just slows it down, although some scientists also believe a better understanding of the universe means a better understanding of the divine, they don't have to be Christians to believe that (for example the Arab mathematicians).
Abraham lived approximately 3800 years ago, that's hardly the time of the creation of the world, and the Abrahamic beliefs remained insignificant on a global scale until the 4th century AD.
* No, it doesn't prove they are all wrong, but yes, science treats every religion equally.
* Belief in the Earth being about 6000 years old was a theory put forward in the 17th century, the Bible never mentioned a creation date, and even if one religion were to be true than there's only a tiny chance it's Christianity (considering how many religions there have been).
Personally I think Buddhism comes closest, since it doesn't make too many assumptions that contradict science.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I agree that religion usually slows down interest in science, but Christianity is the exception to that rule, ''as previously pointed out''. So why the continuing objection?
:Belief in a creator dates back to Adam, not Abraham.
:What do you mean, the Bible never mentions a creation date? What would you expect it to say? Perhaps you'd expect Moses to have written that it was created in 4004 '''B.C.'''? Hardly. If it was to mention a creation date, how would it best do so? What it does is give a list of time spans that can be added to work out when creation occurred. That's about the best you could hope for, and that is what it does. And even non-YEC experts agree that this is what was intended. I assume that you are alluding to Ussher calculating the date of creation in 1650. But Ussher was not the first nor the last to do so; just the best known.
:You are still treating all religions as equal with your comment about the chances of Christianity being the correct one, and it is still just as illogical. And Christianity makes no assumptions that contradict science.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:

== thanks! ==

Phil, thanks for clarifying the Mokele-member part of the story. (I'm not a big fan on bulleted lists--it makes it look like the writer is just trying to occupy more space--but that's your stylistic choice.)

The only other true objection (well, at least that I will bring up) is that the "exctinct species that were found" argument. An analogous argument is that apples provide evidence for oranges. That is, there's nothing about pine trees, squirrels or fish that provide any evidence for dinosaurs, because they are not related. Certainly you would not say that birds do not provide evidence for dinosaurs (!), so why would squirrels or fish or pine trees?

Other than that, I think you have portrayed the creationist perspective as well as it will ever be done. Cheerio! [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks. I'm not crazy about the bulleted list here either, but it seemed the best choice in the circumstances. I could have made each first-level bullet a sub-sub-heading perhaps, but there barely seemed enough content in each one for that, and I felt that making the arrangement clear was important. I might think more about that.
:The extinct species bit is simply to counter the objection that some do make that the mere fact that dinosaurs were last in the fossil record 65 million years ago (on the evolutionary timescale) indicates that they died out that long ago. The examples show that this is not a valid argument. Can I make that clearer somehow?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:00, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, uh, well, I don't know how that follows from that evidence. I just don't like the one sentence about the extinct species, because it is there is no valid conclusion by logic (like syllogism, if you know what that is) to conclude anything about dinosaurs from the other "previously thought of as extinct" species. There's no connect between alive or dead squirrels and dinosaurs. The empirical evidence (by sightings) is as good as the observers credibility, but there is no logical conclusion to be made about dinosaurs from the info. I don't know how to "discount" the fossil record from the data given. (Sorry!) I would still rather rid of the extinct species sentence. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Joke article?==
Offence is not meant to the creator(s) of this article, but is it a joke, or is it meant as a Straw Man argument ''for'' evolution? Can't we do better than this article? The title of this article is '''Dinosaur''', but aside from the first two sentences, it's an article refuting evolution, and not really about dinosaurs at all.

For example, in an article about dinosaurs, you'd expect there to be a mention of, you know, individual types of dinosaurs or something. The animals mentioned in this article are:

*Triceratops (a dinosaur)
*Beetle (not)
*Medusa (not)
*Cat (not)
*Behemoth (maybe, if you believe in YEC)
*Leviathan (maybe, if you believe in YEC)
*Loch Ness Monster (please God, no)
*Plesiosaur (not)
*Mokele-member (please God, no)
*Thunderbird (not)
*Pterosaur (not)
*Dragons (not)
*Coelacanth (not)
*T-rex (in footnote only)

This article is so ''soooo'' bad it makes me embarassed to be a Christian. Why do the Loch Ness Monster, dragons, and other mythical beasts have to be discussed in this article, while ''genuine'' types of dinosaurs aren't even mentioned? I'd love to be able to send my children to Conservapedia, but articles like this are an absolute train wreck. I really want to cry. [[User:HolierThanThou|HolierThanThou]] 21:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree that the article lacks enough information about dinosaurs, particularly the different types of dinosaurs. Feel free to add information about that.
:I don't see why an article about dinosaurs can't mention other creatures at all, but how do you know that dragons were not dinosaurs?
:I have been thinking that maybe some of the stuff in this article could be removed to one or more separate articles (with a brief summary of their points remaining here).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

While I wouldn't be so bold as to edit the personal sandbox of certain sysops here, I can't help but point out that the statement: "They use overwhelming archaeological, fossil, and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times. " is incredibly biased towards creationism. Use of the word "overwhelming" when describing the evidence of human-dinosaur co-existence is at best an overstatement, at worst an outright lie. Perhaps one of the Favored-Ones who hold some pretense of semi-neutrality might consider removing the word overwhelming? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=141796&oldid=141780 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=141810&oldid=141796 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:21, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

So I see. Yep, pretty much why I am having a hard time convincing myself that contributing edits would be worthwhile... [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Some creationists believe the spines on its tail were to stop other dinosaurs from treading on it before the Fall.

You've got to be kidding!
It's almost as ridiculous as that statement about the T-rex being a herbivore...

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:You will note that I've put a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag on that claim, as I've never heard of it myself (and I have a pretty good idea of creationist claims). If no supporting evidence is forthcoming, the edit should be reversed. As for it being as ridiculous as T-rex being a herbivore, that latter one is not ridiculous at all. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, we all know killer jaws come in handy when eating leafs...

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:Have a look at [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/fp_articles/2004/review_skull.jpg this skull] of a carnivore and tell me what you think it eats. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

From the look of it it's probably a mammalian omnivore.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:It's actually a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 fruit bat]. Despite being classified as a carnivore on the basis of its teeth, it doesn't eat meat. Things are not always as they seem. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

It eats fruit with hard shells, not leafs, and it's teeth aren't nearly as deadly as that of a T-rex (that's why I classified it as an omnivore rather than a carnivore), they are a bit pointy, but still relatively flat (square-like) they are not 15cm long razor blades (dagger-like), also the bat has (pointy) molars, the T-rex had none (it had gaps between its teeth, making it practically impossible to grind leafs or fruit.

Oh, don't forget the dinosaur, crocodile, shark and plesiosaur fossils found with skeletons of their prey in their stomach.

But in my time here I've come to see that not everyone holds the same definitions of "facts" and "evidence".

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:You were the one that brought up leaves, not me. Perhaps T-rex' teeth were also to eat hard things, rather than leaves?
:Also, I was only discussing one particular aspect of the issue. Another is that creationists do accept that creatures adapt (within their design limits), and it is therefore possible that T-rex' teeth are an adaption that suits carnivory, and were not exactly as originally designed.
:I'm not sure of the relevance of your comment about creatures with skeletons of their prey. Nobody is disputing that those creatures are/were carnivores, as nobody is disputing that T-rex was a carnivore. The point of contention is whether or not it was ''always'' a carnivore. The Bible teaches that all creatures were created as vegetarians, not that they were always vegetarians.
:I agree with your comments about facts and evidence, although in my case it's the evolutionists that I tend to notice confusing what's what. :-)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

But the molars?
Every land living herbivore animal has them, omnivores have them, but carnivores don't, and T-rex didn't have them, you need molars to eat leafs or fruits, but carnivores can swallow pieces of meat directly; meat doesn't have to be grinded before it arrives in the stomach, because it's easier to digest (plant cells have a cell wall that animal cells lack).

Also if T-rex had become carnivores after the flood, then where are they now?
Where did all the dinosaurs go, how come there were no dinosaurs in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia?

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:T-rex may well have become a carnivore before the flood (but after the Fall). Since the flood, they have become extinct. How do you know that there were no dinosaurs in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia?
:I don't know enough about the teeth to answer that part of your question, but you seem to be overlooking what I said about creatures adapting. I can't say how much they could have adapted, but I suspect that you can't either, so the question remains open. (If only research funds were available to creationists, more of these sorts of questions could be answered! All donations are gratefully received.)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Creatures adapting, hey, wait a minute... there's a word for that: evolution!

Well you'd think that if there were giant Sauropods and T-rexes stampeding through your land at least someone would mention it in their writings, these cultures did mention just about every other animal they knew of...

But go look it up: you can't eat plants without molars!

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

And lo! Jared who was begat of Mahalaleel went down into the valley green and did find his path verily blocked by a fearsome Beast called Tyrannosaurus. And he did run away screaming "O Lord! Save thine humble servant from this dirty great lizard! I fear that it may eat me for it has no molars!"

And the Lord saw that Jared was wise for Beasts that have no molars feed solely upon the Flesh of other Beasts and He did spare him for having taken such close regard of His Creation.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 14:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Where are the "theories"? ==

In the article, it says that creationists have some "therories" that harmonyze with each other (*cough*evolutionharmonizeswitheverythingelse*cough*), but there's no mention of those, I would like to know them.

BTW: The man-dinosaur thing is a joke, why doesn't aztecs, egyptians, american natives, and all the old cultures menion dinosaurs, yes, the dragons, giant lizards an stuff '''are''' there, but where's the rest? {{unsigned|Aknot}}

: The reference to theories harmonising, although under the Creation Perspective section, is actually a reference to evolutionary theories.
: As far as those cultures are concerned, perhaps there ''are'' mentions that have yet to be recognised as such. And creationists believe that references to dragons ''are'' references to dinosaurs.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

yes, but they ''only'' hav dragons, where's everything else? [[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 16:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:You'll have to explain yourself better; I'm not following. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:59, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

PWNED! [[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 15:07, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Mind your manners, Aknot. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:King Corporation PLC

2007-05-13T18:02:34Z

Robledo:

$200 '''''billion'''''?

And no reference to it, or its owner, on the internet? Clearly a hoax. [[User:Wilmington|Wilmington]] 11:52, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

<s>Are you all</s> Is everyone bar Wilmington ''blind''? A hoax? Merger between Wang Corp & King Corp -> Wang King -> wanking. Of course it's a ____ing hoax! No doubt this'll be termed "subtle" parody. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 11:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

----
What d'you mean, ''all'' blind? I spotted it for a clumsy hoax as soon as I saw it; others had to be convinced. [[User:Wilmington|Wilmington]] 13:33, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

My apologies. You had indeed spotted it as a hoax. I have amended accordingly. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 14:02, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:King Corporation PLC

2007-05-13T15:59:39Z

Robledo:

$200 '''''billion'''''?

And no reference to it, or its owner, on the internet? Clearly a hoax. [[User:Wilmington|Wilmington]] 11:52, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Are you all ''blind''? A hoax? Merger between Wang Corp & King Corp -> Wang King -> wanking. Of course it's a ____ing hoax! No doubt this'll be termed "subtle" parody. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 11:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Ear

2007-05-13T03:45:25Z

Robledo:

[[Image:ear.jpg|right|250px|thumb|A human ear.]]
The '''ear''' is the [[organ]] that collects and concentrates sound waves. It then converts these waves into electrical impulses so that the [[brain]] can process them. The ear is made up of three different sections: the outer ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear. These parts all work together so you can hear and process sounds.

==Outer Ear==
The outer ear is called the auricle. This is the visible part of the ear and its main function is to collect sounds waves and focus them down the ear canal. The ear canal produces wax, a viscous mucus with antiseptic properties, in order to trap dirt and prevent infections. Occasionally, excessive wax production blocks the canal and requires treatment.

==Middle Ear==
The middle ear's function is to convert sound waves into [[vibration]]s that are delivered to the inner ear. To do this, it needs the [[ear drum]] (a taut thin membrane separating the outer ear from the middle ear) and the ossicles. The ossicles are the three tiniest, most delicate bones in your body. They include:
* the malleus, which is attached to the eardrum and means "hammer" in [[Latin]].
* the incus, which is attached to the malleus and means "anvil" in Latin.
* the stapes, the smallest bone in the body, which is attached to the incus and means "stirrup" in Latin.

Sound waves travelling down the ear canal strike the ear drum and cause it to vibrate. These vibrations are transmitted through the tiny ossicles - from the hammer to the anvil and then to the stirrup. These bones help sound move along on its journey into the inner ear.

==Inner Ear==
The [[cochlea]] is a small, curled tube in the inner ear. It is filled with [[liquid]] which is set in motion when the ossicles vibrate. The inner walls of this tube are lined with millions of microscopic hairs which move in accordance with the vibrations transmitted through the liquid. The movement of these hairs cause electrical impulses to be sent to the brain via the auditory nerve. The brain then processes these signals into the sounds we hear.

The movement of the liquid in the cochlea relative to the position of our head is responsible for our sense of [[balance]].

[[Category:Anatomy]]

Ear

2007-05-13T03:44:05Z

Robledo: Subbed

[[Image:ear.jpg|right|250px|thumb|A human ear.]]
The '''ear''' is the [[organ]] that collects and concentrates sounds waves. It then converts these waves into electrical impulses so that the [[brain]] can process them. The ear is made up of three different sections: the outer ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear. These parts all work together so you can hear and process sounds.

==Outer Ear==
The outer ear is called the auricle. This is the visible part of the ear and its main function is to collect sounds waves and focus them down the ear canal. The ear canal produces wax, a viscous mucus with antiseptic properties, in order to trap dirt and prevent infections. Occasionally, excessive wax production blocks the canal and requires treatment.

==Middle Ear==
The middle ear's function is to convert sound waves into [[vibration]]s that are delivered to the inner ear. To do this, it needs the [[ear drum]] (a taut thin membrane separating the outer ear from the middle ear) and the ossicles. The ossicles are the three tiniest, most delicate bones in your body. They include:
* the malleus, which is attached to the eardrum and means "hammer" in [[Latin]].
* the incus, which is attached to the malleus and means "anvil" in Latin.
* the stapes, the smallest bone in the body, which is attached to the incus and means "stirrup" in Latin.

Sound waves travelling down the ear canal strike the ear drum and cause it to vibrate. These vibrations are transmitted through the tiny ossicles - from the hammer to the anvil and then to the stirrup. These bones help sound move along on its journey into the inner ear.

==Inner Ear==
The [[cochlea]] is a small, curled tube in the inner ear. It is filled with [[liquid]] which is set in motion when the ossicles vibrate. The inner walls of this tube are lined with millions of microscopic hairs which move in accordance with the vibrations transmitted through the liquid. The movement of these hairs cause electrical impulses to be sent to the brain via the auditory nerve. The brain then processes these signals into the sounds we hear.

The movement of the liquid in the cochlea relative to the position of our head is responsible for our sense of [[balance]].

[[Category:Anatomy]]

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-13T02:51:16Z

Robledo: /* Anti-homosexual violence */ Hsmom: The Voice of Reason

{{unprotected|1 May|RobS}}
Archive(s): [[/1]]
==Science again==
This article I think is complete and it's been nominated for feature status. Let me add a personal observation: many who disputed the science in the Evolution related articles were curiously silent when it came to discussing the science in this article, or dismissed the science outright. There is something to be learned from this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's not really any science in this article to speak of. The sentence about the therapeutic community being divided is, in my view of that community, a mischaracterization because it suggests a relatively even split, which I don't think is accurate. If there's a citation that supports that point fine, but as is it doesn't work. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the article still needs work. It says, "Christians and others who oppose homosexuality on Biblical grounds". But the word homophobia is not just used against those who oppose homosexuality on Biblical grounds. In fact it is usually used against others. It is used against those who oppose same-sex marriage, even when the opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible.
: The etymology may not be correct. My Merriam-Webster dictionary gives 1958 for the earliest known usage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::The etymology is sourced to Gregory M. Herek, ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century'', Sexuality Research & Social Policy, April, 2004, one more reason this psuedoscience is suspect. A cite dating back to 1958 supports Dr. Breiner's claim, "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" and "There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined". The psuedoscience which has permeated the research community has produced volumes of research papers propounding "internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia", which the theraputic community as a whole has failed to adopt or recognize as having any sort of valid scientific basis, at least as far as diagnosis and treatment are concerned (it may have some value in the Sociological field, but that does not carry the weight among legislators for whom this psuedoscience is intended to influence). As far as Herek is concerned, the term did in fact enter mainstream and journalistic use about the time he claims, 1973 and after, and the assertion it reached mainstream use starting with pornographic publications (''Screw'' magazine likewise probably can be supported by the evidence). The claim Weinberg invented it is probably fauilty, but we can say "gay activist and psychologist Gerald Weinberg helped popularize the term".

::What may be most valueable here is demonstrating how the attacks on Creation science claim it lacks a "true" scientific basis, yet those making the attacks are absolutely powerless to give any scientific support to the idea of "homophobia", which was the original intent when the term was popularized. Having failed to hijack the psychologcial research and theraputic professions to futher the homosexual agenda, we see the next phase of an activist agenda taking shape with an attempt to redefine the same flawed theories in new language using legel terminology (hetero "sexism") instead of the psuedoscientific terminology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Of course. The whole thing is tied in with [[Junk science]], i.e., the citing of unreproducible scientific studies to score political or ideological points. The first time I caught people doing this was over the phrase, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." (Maybe my interest stems from my last name, I dunno. ;-)

:::In the Western world, over the last few centuries, both the rich '''and''' the poor have become wealthier. Statistics prove this easily, thus disproving one of [[Marxism]]'s most central claims. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll never argue that homophobia is a phobia; just that it's a form of discrimination.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have any objective support for that view? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::One thing that is clear is that at least most of the time when the term is used it is not referring to a literal phobia of gay people. Setting aside whatever the intentions of the guy who invented the term may have been, I also don't believe there's any evidence that there are a meaningful number of people who have a phobia of homosexuality. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The term clearly was invented to give currency to the idea (a) that homosexuaity was normal, and (b) the rejection of homosexuality was abnormal, (c) that science supported this view. It was psuedoscience that was politicized. And the ''intent'' of its promulgators was always to attack critics. It was bad psuedoscience to begin with, because it urged discriminition and reprisals against people who, by any scientific definition, would be handicapped. My appologies to the promulators and purveyors of lies -- the chickens have come home to roost. The fraud has been exposed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Reparative therapy==
Reparative therapy has no less than 3 ''primea facia'' serious flaws in its intial expansion, see [[Talk:Reparative therapy]]. We are not ready to split this off into a separate article yet. [[AFD Reparative therapy]] has been nominated for deletion because of the naked mirepresentation of scientific and technical sources and the editor warned. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Reparative_therapy] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Robledo's edit ==

User Robledo edited the page to a concise, clear, sensible [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&oldid=137791 version] on April 30 2007. it has been rapidly reverted to the rather bizarre paranoid rant that has developed, which is a shame since it satisfied well known sensible conservative user Ed Poor, and a loony leftie like me. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I would have liked to have seen Robledo's version be accepted as a fine working outline for the article... maybe even the opening part of the article... and then expanded with well-sourced backing for each of the points that it makes. It seemed to me to state the points that needed to be made correctly, neutrally, and accurately. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Way to run away ==

So you lock it without discussion? Doesn't a shorter, more succint article make more sense?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think you were given a fair warning regarding your editing. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AmesG&diff=136813&oldid=134839][http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Reparative_therapy#Example_1][http://www.conservapedia.com/AFD_Reparative_therapy] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Archive warning==

Are we all ready for an archive? Maybe someone who hasn't participated as much in the discussion as I have, should do the archive. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

*Done... although I've participated quite a bit too. If anyone has a problem with where I made the cut, just fix it, I won't object. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
**Thanks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== opposition to the homosexual agenda ==
I reverted an edit that claimed that the term was used for opposition to homosexuality, rather than the homosexual agenda. Does anyone have any comment? I see the term homophobia used for opposition to same-sex marriage and things like that, much more than homosexuality itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:It's a catch-all term. It's used to shut down debate. Like comparing someone to Hitler. It's emotionally manipulative. It reminds me of Orwell's [[Newspeak]] which was designed to prevent thought, rather to express it. It's part of the whole [[politically correct]] thing.

:I'm for freedom, and I think that [[homosexuality]] is the worst sort of slavery. Many young men are trapped in it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Are you serious? Every gay person I know has known either from childhood that they were "different" or discovered it on their own. Is trapped really the precise word? I know it is if you believe it is a choice, but I have never, not once, in my experience with gay people, met someone whose chosen it. That is the weirdest thing to me that people believe that. Just a thought here, but should we also have a page dedicated to [[straight civil unions]] and the [[straight agenda]]?[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Your response seems a bit muddled, specifically regarding the relationship between ''trapped'' and ''choice''. As I understand these words, when one is trapped, one's choices are limited, curtailed, stymied, and even eliminated. A prisoner in a jail has no choice about his daily routine. He can't, for example, take a stroll outside the grounds.

:::Perhaps you have confused me with other Christians who regard homosexual behavior as entirely a matter of choice. Going to rock concerts instead of opera and ballet, is a choice. Majoring in economics or biology or civil engineering (or not going to college at all), is a choice. Voting Democratic or Republican is a choice.

:::Feeling revulsion or fear or indifference or attraction upon seeing a pretty girl, on the other hand, does not appear to be a matter of choice. Asking her out on a date, or shooting her with an automatic rifle, however, is most certainly a choice. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Robledo's version. ==

I reverted it, because he basicly rewrote the whole thing without bringing anything up on the talk page, after there was significant discussion to come up with the previous version. I am open to changing it, but i think that his version takes it a little too far. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: First sentence - how is homophobia a pseudoscientific term? What claims to the scientific method does it make? Is it any less scientific than arachnophobia? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::What is a phobia? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::: The m-w says it well - "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation" There are no claims to scientificness of the term. If you can find any material that claims a scientific backing of homophobia, that would be interesting to see. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Here's our Guide, the [http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm DSM IV]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm intrigued by the notion of having taken it "a little too far." The aims of my second revision were thus:

1. To make it clear that the term's common usage refers to a general opposition (not phobic or irrational), and is widely understood as such.

2. To acknowledge that even this "weak" formulation contains an implicit value judgement, akin to labelling someone racist or sexist, and that this angers principled opponents.

3. To acknowledge that violence and intimidation is a continuing issue and must be resisted by principled opponents ''as well as'' activists.

4. To do this in a clear, concise and fair manner.

The removal of the NARTH material is necessitated by aims 1 & 4, particularly with regards to fairness. This site has ample anti-homosexual entries already - it needs another like it needs a fire in its server room.

If anyone wishes to take specific issue with any of these stated aims, or identify how my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=144205&oldid=144021 second revision] failed to meet them, please do so below. Comments of support are also welcome.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes but the whole problem stems from the disinformation campaign mounterd by gay activists in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s; they nakedly abused a scientific term to further a political agenda. The idea was obvious then, once homosexuality was "normalized", gay activists sought to slander opposition to homosexuality as "abnormal". Today, 2007, they '''cannot''' walk away from the factual, historical, record, claim they were misunderstood or something, while at the same time slandering people who both oppose the homosexual ageneda, and dissent on the idea that homosexuality is "normal" behavior. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, cards on the table. I personally hold homosexuality to be a trivial physical difference exhibited by a minority of the population, in much the same way that some people are left-handed or have blue eyes.

Your primary concern seems to be the history of the use of the term. I'm more concerned with how it's used now. Can we perhaps agree on two things:

1. That principled opponents explicitly reject violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals, and that the article needs to make this clear.

2. That the historical points you are trying to make might be better placed within articles which already serve that function, namely [[homosexual agenda]]?

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 15:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
*''principled opponents explicitly reject violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals''
:Please stop momentarilly; this itself may be a bigotted statement against heterosexuals. It automatically assumes "violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals" primarily comes from heterosexuals. Homosexuals have the highest rates of domestic violence of any socio economic group. Consenting homosexual relationships are often are fraught with violence. So before we begin accusing or condemning a large group of people of things they may not be guilty of, we need to lay some other cards on the table. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus wept, [[User:RobS|RobS]]. Let's try this again then:

1. That principled opponents explicitly reject ''that violence and intimidation which is directed against homosexuals purely because they're homosexual'', and that the article needs to make this clear.

People get beaten up for being gay (killed in some countries). This is a Bad Thing. However great your antipathy towards homosexuality in general, I struggle to believe you'd wish to come down on the side of petty thuggery and I'm frankly baffled as to why you're prevaricating.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Valid point. And it needs to be made somewhere. But we're not making concession to the fact that gay rights activists have been extraordinarily deceptive and mean spirited with the use of this term since the day of its inception. And the recent Congressional action testifies to this [http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9069&department=CFI&categoryid=papers] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Glad to have you on board re. violence and intimidation. This is a Good Thing. Oddly enough, the Bill your above link frets about so much confines itself to those who cause, or attempt to cause, '''bodily injury''' to someone because of their (deep breath) actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability. Why this can't be dealt with under existing laws, I don't know, but there's no mention of anti-gay speech at all. I suggest you [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~mdbswg2UuC:: read it].

I still think that the historical points you wish to make would be best developed in [[homosexual agenda]]. I'd be happy to link back to it within a short paragraph explaining the depth of feeling/anger involved.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:There is serious reservations about this legislation. See [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535 Christian belief a 'hate crime' under plan], WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. See this qote from another citations,
::"So, if speech turns a three-year sentence into a 30-year sentence for a state "hate crime" violation, just what might H.R. 1592 do on the federal level? As Rep. (and former Judge) Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, pointed out on the House Judiciary Subcommittee, if passed, H.R. 1592 is going to put pastors in prison. Pointing to Title 18 of the US Criminal Code, Section 2 (a):
:::(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, '''counsels''', commands, '''induces''' or procures its commission, is '''punishable as a principal'''. –18 USC Sec. 2
:::Pastor? Have you ever counseled from a biblical perspective or read from Roman 1? I Corinthians 6? Genesis 19? Leviticus 18 or 20? Then, if H.R. 1592 becomes law and someone who has attended your church, read your materials or heard your broadcast commits a crime – such as pushing away a cross-dresser's unwelcome advances – you are "punishable as a principal," as someone who "counsels" and "induces" the now-illegal belief that homosexual behavior is a sin. [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55348]
::What is most appaling is, this blatant attack on the Constitutional rights of American citizens does not have a prayer of becoming law, because we know Bush will vetoe it. But Pelosi and company have now stated categorically what their priorities are -- this evidenctly is ''more important'' than getting troops out of Iraq, because they already have acted upon it. nevertheless, despite Pelosi & company ''knowing'' it will not become law in legislative session, we have another example of liberal [[Deceit]], only this time the [[Democratic Party]] leadership is deceiving gay rights activists, misleading them into beleiving their desire to violate the Constitutional rights of other American citizens has a chance to become law. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, Rob, the real victims are the people discriminating against gays, and constantly making them feel like second-class citizens. Thanks for reminding us who the real victims are.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:We're getting sidetracked here (though I'll check out this new Bill later). Can we return to the idea that I feel the historical points you wish to make would be best developed in [[homosexual agenda]]? Any specific criticisms you have of my second revision would be useful too.

:Good to see you back, AmesG ;)

:--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

'''UPDATE:''' H.R. 1592 still confines itself to those who cause, or attempt to cause, '''bodily injury'''. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110j3ZUNT:: Read the blazing thing here!]

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, I thought so. Good to be back Robledo!!!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::(a) it doesn't stand a chance (see [[Deceit]]), and (b) Evangelicals are up in arms about it. I got numerous cites over the past week. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:05, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== OMG ==

Sometimes I read articles here that make me wonder how people think. Sometimes I read articles that make me think, "these people are truly craxy!" This article is one of them. Wow. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::you are very intolerant.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Back on Topic... ==
I think this article fails because it addresses a usage of the term that almost no-one expresses: it's essentially an article against a straw-man. I've never heard of gay rights activists claiming that homophobia is a disease. I've always used the term to mean something analogous to "racism" or "sexism." The article should reflect common usage, not pointless venting against a straw man.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Why didn't they use "homosexism" when they invented the pseudoscientific pejoritive back in the 60s? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't think linguistic dissection is a legitimate argument here, where the plain meaning in context is clearly the same.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

RobS,

Unless you care to provide some specific criticism of my second revision, I plan to revert within the next few hours. You've had ample opportunity to comment constructively.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 14:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Response,
:*'' is widely understood as such.''
:understood by who? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:32, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Mostly by everyone except you. I have never heard a single gay rights activist argue that homophobia is a mental disorder. Nor have I heard argued that racism is a mental disorder. They both may be distastes based on "Principled Objection," sure, but that doesn't save either from being wrong. But not to get off topic, all I'm saying is that no one argues that homophobia is a mental disorder.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So please explain. Is homophobia a phobia? Is the term phobia commonly used to describe mental disorders? Is the term homophobia intended to be a derogatory term? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::It's intended to be a term as derogatory as "racism," and "homophobia" is just a term for discrimination that has arisen in a cultural context that wholly separates it from any independent definition of "phobia." -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

We risk getting lost in trivial point by point arguments here. Please read my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=144205&oldid=144021 second revision] and provide a comprehensive reply detailing any specific objections you may have.

I thank you for your forthcoming co-operation in this matter.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 15:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Robledo, I like it, but while I agree with the last paragraph, I don't think it'd survive a revert war. Maybe "couch" it a bit, and then revert, please, because your definition is actually sensible!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cheers, fella :) I'm off for some dinner - we'll see if they've come up with anything substantive when I get back.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 15:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
*'' rarely employed in its full "strong" sense, i.e. an irrational phobic response ''
:Rarely used? That's not the way many have ''heard'' it used for several decades now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I think the problem is that the "strong" sense is your perception, based on homophobia-phobia, if you will. Your fear of the term's use as a mental illness is an irrational fear that has no actual grounding.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Ok, so we agree a pseudoscientific term has been misused to impugn innocent people, although you do not wish to discuss ''why'' the promulgators did this. The debate now is, why should we continue to contribute to the victimization of alleged "homophobes" to further a politcal agenda of activists proven to be [[Deceit|deceitful]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
No, I don't think we agree that a pseudoscientific term has been misused. The term has never been understood or used - except by you - to class homophobia as a mental disease. It's just a buzzword, and a shortened & easier way to say "someone who discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation." Nothing more, nothing less.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Why didn't Mr. Weinberg & Al Goldstein, way back when, use "homosexism" then, if it means discriminition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Ask them! Probably because "homosexism" doesn't sound as good, and muddled the issue with women's rights, which as a movement was not doing so well at the time, and would no doubt do better on its own. Imputing an invidious reason is just paranoid.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Ah ha! So we have it right there! An admission they used a medical term to promote a politcal agenda. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
You're imputing an invidious ''mens rea'' where there is none. The term has never been used, even implicitly, to suggest that homophobia is a mental disease. Please try not to be so paranoid. On the other end, aren't you just using a medical term - gender identity disorder - to further your own political agenda?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:When the American Psychiatric Association downgraded homosexuality from a [[mental illness]], the tables turned, and gay activists sought to characterize homosexuality as "normal" while impugning critics of the APA's decision as "abnormal", i.e. mentally deficient, or crazy. Gay activists sought to convince us only a crazy person would oppose homosexual activity, and the gay agenda. Today, as you and others have very well articulated, gay activists seek to criminalize what gay activists once considered a mental illness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, you say that "homophobia" is just a term for discrimination and not a phobia. Do you have any sources to support that? It is contrary to my experience. Eg, some states have laws against discrimination, but none have laws against homophobia. Why is that, do you think? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:This is true what he says. It is not illegal to think, only to do. In some countries one cannot say that they think homosexuality is wrong, but no one says what you can believe in your heart.[[User:MoshiachNow|MoshiachNow]] 16:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
If you can find a gay rights activist saying that homophobia is a mental disease, then throw down. Otherwise you're just imagining it. And RSchlafly, I think that your note about the way that the law works is just right on: it recognizes that the only thing that gay rights workers are after is criminalizing discrimination, not though.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:What is a phobia? other than a mental illness? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Is arachnophobia a mental illness?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know; I thought it was a movie, but I never saw it. And please, spare me the details on it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Movie?! Huh. Anyways, not all "phobias" are mental illnesses, first of all, and second, I have yet to see you show me someone saying (other than you!) that homophobia is a mental disease.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:28, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Dr. Breiner in this article states discusses the problem with the term pretty good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Right, Rob, he states the ''linguistic'' problem with it, but he doesn't prove that anyone has used the term to mean as much. It has never been used to mean mental illness, get a grip.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:What would you characterize "Christophobia" as? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Since I've never heard of it, I'd characterize it as ''another'' thing you made up.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Love the compromise. Great work Robledo!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's a pseudoscientific term with a hidden poltical meaning, and very offensive to those to whom it is applied. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:07, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Robledo version ==
Robledo, I reverted your edit because it appeared contrary to all the discussion here and contrary even to the cited sources. You define "Homophobia is most commonly used to indicate a general opposition to the idea that homosexuality is an acceptable state of being.", but the source does not say that and you give no example of the word even being used that way. Then you equate homophobia with murder! Now I think that the current version understates the extent to which homophobia is used as a smear term. You are trying to use it to smear as murderers anyone who objects to the gay agenda. I think that your edit is false and offensive, and it is certainly not a compromise. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Nonsense. My edit left the old article untouched in the Objections section. All the evidence suggests you have the ability to read - I suggest you employ it more fully next time.

You can not seriously deny that gay men and women suffer violence and intimidation, and yes, even murder, because of some people's deep antipathy towards homosexuality. The article '''must''' make that clear. Even RobS agreed that.

I stand by my definition of homophobia and by the fact that my [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel1.htm source] supports it:

What is homophobia?
The suffix "phobia" is derived from the Greek word "phobos". In English, it means either fear or loathing. "Homophobia" has a variety of meanings, including:

* "hatred of homosexuality"
* "hatred of homosexuals"
* "fear of gays and lesbians"
* '''"a desire to discriminate against homosexuals"'''
* '''"an attempt to discriminate against homosexuals"'''

'''The fourth and fifth options appear to be the dominant meanings among the general population. It places "homophobia" in the same class as "racism" and "sexism" where hatred, fear and discrimination are directed against persons of different races, and genders.'''

You have frankly made yourself appear somewhat foolish.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, you have cited one particular source that gives 5 definitions, and then says that those who oppose same-sex marriage are homophobes. That would include most Americans, and most Democrat leaders. Then you want to associate homophobes with cold-blooded murderers. Would you like to add a sentence saying, "There are radical groups that brand political leaders like Clinton, Kerry, and Obama as homophobes who are promoting the murders of minorities." That seems to be what you are justifying here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if you're drunk, or wilfully trying to provoke me. The source gives 5 definitions and then fastens on the last two as "the dominant meanings among the general population." This is exactly what my definition claims.

As per my definition, the term is perfectly suited to "those who oppose same-sex marriage" as they're clearly demonstrating a "general opposition to the idea that homosexuality is an acceptable state of being." The fact that you don't like the term is frankly neither here nor there.

And as for my associating everyone who displays this general opposition with "cold-blooded murderers," that's nonsense and you know it. I clearly state that "principled objections to homosexuality are perfectly possible, particularly on religious grounds." A principled anti-gay stance pretty much excludes violent assault, wouldn't you say?

I intend to revert unless you can come up with something vaguely coherent.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:Robledo, we need a definition of "internalized homophobia", which my source, Dr. Breiner, denies exists. Secondly, can you produce recent FBI stats of the number of homosexual murder victims attributed to homophobia? Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

N.B. murders include non-negligent manslaughters

[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm 2005 - Table 4]

* Anti-Male Homosexual: 0 murders, 105 aggravated assaults, 203 assaults, 195 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Female Homosexual: 0 murders, 29 aggravated assualts, 43 assaults, 52 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Homosexual: 0 murders, 1 forcible rape, 34 aggravated assaults, 76 assaults, 47 incidents of intimidation

[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf 2004 - Table 4, p.19]

* Anti-Male Homosexual: 0 murders, 113 aggravated assaults, 253 assaults, 252 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Female Homosexual: 0 murders, 34 aggravated assualts, 49 assaults, 61 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Homosexual: 1 murder, 51 aggravated assaults, 58 assaults, 69 incidents of intimidation

[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf 2003 - Table 4, p.18]

* Anti-Male Homosexual: 6 murders, 100 aggravated assaults, 288 assaults, 270 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Female Homosexual: 0 murders, 2 forcible rapes, 21 aggravated assualts, 66 assaults, 66 incidents of intimidation
* Anti-Homosexual: 0 murders, 1 forcible rape, 41 aggravated assaults, 85 assaults, 93 incidents of intimidation

[http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/05/robida/index.html This] is a 2006 report on an attack in a Massachusetts gay bar, and [http://web.amnesty.org/aidoc/ai.nsf/afec99eadc40eff880256e8f0060197c/dc31f264b72fabf280256a48003c810c/$FILE/ch5.pdf this] is a report from Amnesty on the scale of the international problem. Not pleasant reading :( --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:So there have zero "anti-homosexual" murders in the United States since 2003? And you think this warrants its own subhead, considering the FBI ''does not'' attribute them to homophobia, and that we should place ''this information'' ahead of an undefined term? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't you start going all RSchlafly on me here, RobS. I give you more credit that that. The very fact that some people are '''so''' anti-gay as sometimes to commit murder is noteworthy in itself, and is precisely the reason why you, as a principled opponent, should be seeking to distance your views as far from theirs as possible.

Let's look at the figures for aggravated assaults against male homosexuals for a minute. On a rough calculation, they entail that every 3-4 days someone has the living sh't kicked out of them simply for preferring men to women. That alone is a Bad Thing.

I repeat: homophobia is most commonly understood as a general opposition to the acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable state of being. In the case of your principled objections, then it's just an annoying term you're going to have to learn to live with. Others, however, use this general opposition to legitimise their own violent and thuggish behaviour. As thoughtful human beings, we '''must''' challenge this.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 23:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:You want to do a subhead entitled "murder", yet haven't defined the term. Then the sources you cite here on talk doesn't use the term, either. Next the proposed text actually cites a few British incidents -- evidently gays are safer in the US than in the Great Britain ''despite'' the fact their chance of being killed with a handgun is 37 times greater than GB. Frankly, I don't know where we're going with all this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: If it is true that some people are so anti-gay as to commit murder, then that might be relevant to an article on hate crimes, but not homophobia. You repeat your definition, but it is meaningless unless you can explain how it applies. Are Kerry, Clinton, and Obama homophobes? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

RSchlafly, I refer you back to my earlier reply beginning "I'm not sure if you're drunk, or wilfully trying to provoke me." RobS, I'm going to bed - we'll pick this up tomorrow.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 00:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==A reference that doesn't say what the article says they say==
The article says:
:The term was invented to impugn and slander opponents of homosexuality.
It supports that by a reference to [http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]. Well, there are two problems with that. The first is that the article ''does not say that.'' What the article says is
:Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture...

Either "Pushing forward the gay agenda" and "impugning and slandering oppontents of homosexuality" mean the same thing or they mean different things. If they mean the same thing, there's no reason to prefer the second wording. If they mean different things, the second wording should not be used when the reference uses the first wording.

A second problem is that the site is not directly quoting Herek, so what we have is not what Herek said, but NARTH's summary or paraphrase, and NARTH is sufficiently non-neutral that I don't trust it to have rendered Herek accurately.

Until someone finds Herek's article—has anyone been able to? NARTH's article has a link, but it's dead—let's stick to what the reference actually says, and let's note that it is not a direct source. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Smith is right, and I was wrong. We must use quotes correctly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::This cite, Charles W. Socarides, M.D., [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], ''America'', (November 18, 1995), says
::*They have created a kind of conventional wisdom: that we suffer from homophobia, a disease that has actually been invented by gays projecting their own fear on society. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:32, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah. Found the Herek article. A valid link is: [http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/SearchResults.cfm?SID=A4F6929E0E5A2287A5F47B481435896E&DSN=nsrc_dsn] Haven't read it yet. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Nope, that doesn't work as a permalink, either. Can't find anything better as a link than to tell people to "go to http://nsrc.sfsu.edu and search on "stigma in the twenty-first century." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

The Herek article says "Weinberg gave a name to the hostility and helped popularize the belief that it constituted a social problem worthy of scholarly analysis and intervention. His term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies." It does confirm what NARTH said about its first appearance in print, cites May 23, 1969 as the date of publication, and confirms that in that publication Nichols and Clarke used homophobia to refer to heterosexuals’ fears that others might think they are homosexual. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:The cite supports exactly as I've said,
:*''With that one word, Weinberg neatly challenged entrenched thinking about the “problem” of homosexuality.''
:The word was invented to make "antigay" attitides (as Herek describes) "abnormal", exactly at the time the mental disease of homosexuality was declared "normal". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Weinberg claims homophobia is a mental illness.
:*''Of course, any answer to the question of how an illness develops,( and homophobia is an illness, no doubt about that) has to be incomplete. What worse illness can there be than acute conventionality. You should pray every night that you don't wake up with it.'' [http://www.gaytoday.com/interview/110102in.asp] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::RobS, I was addressing a statement that said "The term was invented to impugn and slander opponents of homosexuality." I don't know whose statement that was. I provided a citation that supports some things that some people have said. But please look clearly at what it does and does not support.
::The statement has been made that the term "homophobia" is used as a tool by gay-rights advocates to further their cause. Well, I think Herek can be fairly described as a gay-rights advocate and indeed, here is a gay-rights advocate saying "His term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies." OK.
::It does ''not'' say that it was '''invented for that purpose.''' Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but the passage I quote from Herek does '''not''' say that.
::And it says that it was a tool "'''for''' gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies." It does '''not''' say that was a tool for "impugning and slandering" opponents. Slander, in particular, is a pretty strong word with a reasonably specific meaning.
::Please be clear about the distinction between these statements. They are ''not the same.''
:::*A gay-rights activist has described it as an "important tool" in furthering that cause.
:::*"Gay-rights activists have described it as an 'important tool' in furthering their cause.
:::*"It has been used by gay-rights activists to impugn their opponents."
:::*"It has been used mostly by gay-rights activists to impugn their opponents."
:::*"It was invented to impugn opponents of homosexuality."
:::*"It was invented to impugn and slander opponents of homosexuality."
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed compromise==
Here's a proposal for a compromise solution. If we can first create a subhead, ==Internalized homophobia==, and discuss the controversial issue how much of the research over the past thirty years has discoverd most of the patients therapist have been treating are homosexuals with an aversion to themselves and/or their own conduct, complete with some statistics, this would end the fraudlent notion that homophobia is exclusively a heterosexual phenomenea. Then we could include a subhead entitled ==anti-homosexual violence== with the FBI stats, and noting the FBI does not use the term homophobia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Disagree. Stick to the topic. Define homophobia and discuss how the term is used. Reparative therapy and anti-homosexual violence aren't relevant. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::The term ''homophobia'' is used to assert an idea. The idea is that '''all''' opposition to homosexuality is evil. Obviously, Christians and others who regard homosexuality as evil are going to object to this.

::This is like calling scientists who disagree with the UN climate panel "global warming deniers" with ''deniers'' carrying the same connotation as [[holocaust denial]].

::Ironically, it is also like calling people who defend Israel, against Arab nationalism and terrorism, "Nazis".

::It is name-calling, in place of reasoned discussion. It confuses the issue. And my personal touchstone for evil is: whatever moves us away from clarity and towards confusion, is likely to be evil. Be wary of it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Ed, I don't agree with your edit that homophobia is used as "a neutral synonym for any opposition to homosexuality or gay rights". I've never heard anyone use it as a neutral term. It is only used as a derogatory epithet like nigger or faggot or fascist. If it were a neutral term, then there would be people who proudly call themselves homophobes. There aren't. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Like the new intro, Ed. :) I've tweaked it a bit to keep the peace with RSchlafly. I'm adding the Anti-homosexual violence bit shortly as per RobS.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:47, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:I second Roger's motion. We are not talking about how the term is used, we are talking about how it has been abused, both when it was coined, and now. This intro simply caters to that abuse. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

If we are going to any of this information about anti-gay violence, we need statistics from reseach by propoents of "internalized homophobia" theory. This is the propoposed compromise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

My apologies. I hadn't realised that one was contingent on the other. I'll look into it, but I suspect it's something of a blind alley. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't see how the anti-gay stats are any more relevant than stats about how gays are spreading AIDS.
This article should be a lot shorter. I'd like to know whether we can agree on a few things, including:
*The term homophobia is a pejorative and offensive epithet.
*The word suggests that it is a phobia, but there is no such recognized disorder.
*Some apply the term to anyone who opposes same-sex marriage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:"The word suggests that it is a phobia, but there is no such recognized disorder." Agree provisionally. Haven't looked at DSM-IV myself, not a psychologist, don't know the literature, but think you're right.

:"Some apply the term to anyone who opposes same-sex marriage." I'm sure you're right, but should be illustrated by concrete (sourced) examples.

:"The term homophobia is a pejorative and offensive epithet." Disagree. It all depends who's saying it, what they mean by it, what the context is, what the implied tone of voice is. Think of "paranoid" as a parallel. Depends whether the person saying it is friendly or hostile, whether it's meant loosely or literally, and, of course, whether the person of whom its said is clinically suffering from paranoia.

:I might buy that it's "often" or even "usually" used that way, but I'd like to see concrete support. Also, I find "pejorative" easier to buy than "offensive," particularly given that the dictionaries don't describe it as "offensive."

:One of the things I'm getting at is that I do not currently think Weinberg used it that way, although it's possible that other gay-rights advocates might have used it that way from the beginning. I think Weinberg really saw it as a phobia in the clinical sense. Of course he was talking about incidents like a woman literally trembling with fear and unable to speak to him because she thought he might be gay.

:(One of the things you didn't mention because it's not important, but I suspect we agree on this: as a coinage it affects me like a <s>fingernail scraping on a chalkboard,</s> dried-out marker squeaking on a whiteboard, because "homo" doesn't, or shouldn't, mean "homosexual." If we're mixing slang and Greek, it could just as well be "queerophobia."). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::Weinberg said homophobia was a mental illness that both gays & straights suffered from. Of course now we know, the theraputic community has largely rejected the entire idea that Weinberg proposed back then. Nonetheless, it has ''always'', since it was coined, but used as a political attack term against anyone who opposed the gay agenda. Hence, this is a clear cut case of paseudoscinece being used to create mass deception -- and this is what this articl e needs to arcticulate. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear Sentence==
''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnent -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.'' I haven't waded through the whole talk page here, but I did notice on skimming the article that this sentence needs some work - I think I ''may'' understand what it is trying to say, but it is very unclear and the last part (''battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnent'') definately needs to be cleaned up gramatically and spelling-wise. I'd do it myself but am reluctant to touch it since I'm not sure I understand what it's meant to say.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 17:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Pregnant women often are violently abused by husbands and boyfriends after becoming pregnant. This is a hate-motived crime. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::<shakes head back and forth to make sure he just heard that reply> What? how is this... wha? I am so confused by your reply to this I don't know what to say. <composes self> How is beating a pregnant woman a hate crime? <exits, pursued by a bear> [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:19, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I do realize that pregnant women are more vulnerable to domestic violence than women who aren't pregnant (though I do not believe this is usually a hate crime (as I understand the term) at all - it has more to do with the change in the relationship that pregnancy creates), and I had figured this was part of what the sentence was trying to convey. The problem for me is not so much that there is a problem with what the sentence is ''trying'' to say, as that the sentence as it stands does not make sense. (''battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnent''? Huh?) It is hard to understand and should be re-worded to make the meaning clear. It may need to be broken up into several sentences, or re-arranged, in order to make sense. (Plus "pregnant" is spelled two different ways in the same sentence.) Is the sentence a list of categories of hate crime victims? And are you trying to get at how many anti-gay hate crimes there are, by subtracting other kinds of crimes (or something like that)? Not trying to be difficult at all, just trying to get this section to read a little easier for the average user. I don't want to make the changes myself because I don't fully understand what the paragraph is trying to say, and I don't want to mess it up.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
*''''battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant''
:This refers to a "victim class" [http://www.americansfortruth.com/issues/freedom-under-fire/]
::Just to clarify--the referenced article mentions pregnant women (and seniors, military persons, etc) as groups Republicans tried unsuccessfully to have added to the the hate crimes bill as "victim classes". The final bill mentions only "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim". --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 10:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:::That's right. See this extract for example, [http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2005-03/philadelphia_march_april.pdf ''Preaching the Gospel is a "Hate Crime"'']
:::"In November 2002, Pennsylvania legislators added “[[actual or perceived]] sexual orientation” and “gender or [[gender identity]]” to the state’s “ethnic intimidation” [[hate crimes]] law. Opponents such as CWA, warned at the time that it would lead to persecution of Christians, but proponents scoffed. Proof of this prophecy arrived on October 10, 2004, at a Philadelphia park. Repent America, a group led by Michael Marcavage, walked into Outfest, an outdoor celebration of homosexuality, carrying a bullhorn and signs such as “Homosexuality Is a Sin” and “Christ Can Set You Free.” As they sang a hymn, they were surrounded by a homosexual group called the Pink Angels, which blocked them with Styrofoam boards. Police asked the Christians to leave, and Marcavage argued briefly that it was a public square and that they were entitled to free speech.

:::"Within minutes, Marcavage relented and the group walked several hundred feet, where police arrested 11 people, ranging in age from 17 to 72. None of the homosexual activists was arrested. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:35, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::::"Preaching the Gospel" is a phrase which generally means telling people the Good News about Jesus Christ, in an effort to lead them to God. Carrying a sign which says "God Abhors You" is not, in my book, preaching the Gospel. Can you imagine Jesus doing such a thing? Leading gently by example is a much more appropriate and effective approach. These men were not preaching the gospel, they were looking for confrontation and attention. Let's not endorse their actions as being somehow "Christian". --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:02, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Where, in the citation provided, [http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2005-03/philadelphia_march_april.pdf] is there mention of Christians arrested for carrying a sign that says, "God Abhors You"? If you can't provide it, your objection I'll regard as trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe she's referring to Lev. 18:22. Abomination and abhor have similar Latin roots. Hsmom, I think you make some excellent points, especially re. Jesus. That kind of thinking is sadly lacking around here at times. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 14:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:Christian teaching on homosexuality is centered on Romans 1:27, "For this cause, God gave them over unto unrighteousness"; what is "this cause" that Paul refers to? "This cause" is [[idolatry]], "worshiping and serving the creature more than the Creator", as [[Lucifer]] did. IOW, homosexuality is the ''result'' of separation from God, not the ''cause'' of separation from God, as the Scripture clearly says, "God gave them over to...". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:31, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Romans 1:26, as it happens, but interesting nonetheless. You owe Hsmom an apology. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 17:30, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

=== Anti-homosexual violence ===

''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders. ''
:The FBI hate crime statistics ONLY report offenses based on bias. Domestic violence and other crimes where bias was not an element are not included in these statistics. (See the various pages of the web site cited in the article.) I'm not sure if the sentence above is trying to subtract crimes against homosexuals that did not involve bias from the 1171 number (which would not make sense, as all of the 1171 involved bias, otherwise they would not have been reported as hate crimes), or if it was an attempt to gauge how much of violence against homosexuals involves bias by comparing crimes that involve bias to crimes that don't. Or perhaps it's something else? I really don't understand what this section is trying to say. [[User:RobS|RobS]], could you clarify your thinking?

''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.''
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I agree that the FBI doesn't include in their hate crime statistics crimes that include bias against senior citizens, or bias against the homeless, or bias against military personnel, or bias against pregnant women. They only include crimes that include bias based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, and sexual orientation. I'm not sure, though, why this is relevant? And wouldn't it be clearer to simply list the categories that *are* included, rather than those which aren't? Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why crimes that include bias against senior citizens, for example, are relevant?

''Violent crimes are defined as murder...<snip>...and other. For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons <ref>U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Violent Crime Rates]</ref> or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref> Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States], by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1. </ref>''
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I *think* what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that there aren't many hate crimes against homosexuals - do I have this right? If so, I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here. The hate crime statistics do not include *all* violent crimes against homosexuals - just those that include bias. So if a homosexual man gets murdered by his lover because he was unfaithful, for example, it's not a hate crime, and thus will not be listed as an "anti-homosexual murder" in the hate crime statistics, but it *would* be considered a violent crime in the violent crime rate statistics. Do you see what I mean? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Hsmom, I could kiss you, I really could. Hell, here you go: ''mwah!'' RobS, however, is firmly in denial on this one. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Eye

2007-05-13T02:13:51Z

Robledo: Subbing - wasn't that bad, H ;)

The '''eye''' is the organ of sight. The eye enables creatures to perceive light in various ways, from simple lightness versus darkness, to full-fledged color vision.

In the human, and most mammals, the eye consists of several structures. The cornea is a protective outer layer. The iris is an aperture through which light enters. The lens is controlled by muscles to focus the light on the retina at the back of the eye.

The retina has many specialized cells (photoreceptors) that are able to react to light and send their signals via the optic nerve to the brain for interpretation. There are two types of photoreceptor cell called rods and cones. Rods are by far the most numerous (around 120 million) and are sufficiently sensitive to allow basic black/white vision even at very low light levels. Cones (6-7 million) only function at higher light levels, but enable us to perceive colour. <ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html</ref>

Typically eyes come in pairs, to allow binocular vision and hence depth perception, but [[spider]]s (for example) have eight eyes, and [[scallop]]s may have several dozen.

== Diseases of the eye ==
[[Image:Eyeball.jpg|right|thumb|Doctors performing eye surgery.]]

The eye worm ''Loa loa'', a [[parasitism|parasitic]] [[nematode]] worm, inhabits the vitreous humour of the human eyeball in parts of Africa, and is often only detected when somebody sees the worm swimming across inside the eyeball.<ref>http://www.paru.cas.cz/helminti/Nematoda/Loa_loa.gif</ref>

== Evolution of the eye ==

Numerous, unrelated organisms possess eyes of varying degrees of complexity. Evolutionists allege that these all evolved independently to meet a common need; this is discussed in some detail in ''[[Climbing Mount Improbable]]'', by [[Richard Dawkins]]. <ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkrev2.asp</ref>

Creationists commonly argue that, in order to offer even basic functionality, the eye must be so complex as to preclude an evolutionary explanation for its development.

== Eyes in the Bible ==

The word 'eye' appears over seven hundred times in the Bible.

<blockquote>
''And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.'' Exodus 21:23-25
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''When Samson was captured by the Philistines, his eyes were put out.'' Judges 16:21
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.'' Matthew 5:29
</blockquote>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Anatomy]]

Homophobia

2007-05-13T00:40:24Z

Robledo: /* Anti-homosexual violence */ removing absurd mathematical error - if you wish to reinsert RobS, I defy you to show valid working on the talk page. Hint: can't be done.

{{delete}}

'''Homophobia''' is a term with complex, overlapping meanings. It can mean a fear of male emotional intimacy, as well as an unprincipled [[opposition to homosexuality]].

'''Homophobia''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] term originally intended to portray principalled opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as an abnormal mental condition. It was introduced into scientific literature shortly before the American Psychiatric Association declassified its diagnosis of [[homosexuality]] as a [[mental illness]] in 1973. Recent research however, claims that among non-homosexual homophobes, no phobia exists, <ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articles/674/CFI/cfreport/index.htmNew Study Says There’s No Phobia in ‘Homophobia’], Martha Kleder, CWA, 6/28/2002.</ref> and most homophobes are homosexual who suffer from "internalized homophobia". The is no agreement within the psychiatric and theraputic profressions on what the term actually means.

According to the National Association for Research & Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH), gay-rights advocate Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. wrote that the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]. "In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today."</ref>
It is primarily used by [[gay activist]]s to portray opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as irrational <ref>Charles W. Socarides, M.D., [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], ''America'', (November 18, 1995). </ref>
based on fear or hatred, and to smear Christians and others. It is intended to sound like a form of [[mental illness]], but unlike actual phobias, it is not a term for any recognized psychological condition. NARTH says,
:"The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia—or irrational fear—of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html NARTH Position Statements]</ref>

When used in this [[pejorative]] sense, the term is offensive and derogatory (see [[Mockery]]).

===Etymology===
The word comes from combining the Greek prefix ''homo-'', meaning "same", and suffix ''-phobia'', meaning "fear of". In early usage by homosexual activists, the term described heterosexual fears that others might think they were homosexual <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html</ref> The neologism was promoted by George Weinberg, a gay activist and psychologist, who attempted to define it in clinical literature shortly before the downgrading of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Asscoaition in 1973. Weinberg claimed it was "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals -- and in the case of homosexuals themselves, selfloathing."<ref>Plummer, David, ''One of the Boys: Masculinity, Homophobia, and Modern Manhood'', [http://books.google.com/books?id=xHGz4f_2_7IC&pg=PA3&ots=U8ktZZgnAk&dq=George+Weinberg+homophobia&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=d7hjCcZ1uuBlgdLyRjUJwEn51uA#PPA3,M1 pp. 3-4]: "'Homophobia was introduced into the clinical literature by George Weinberg in 1972, in ''Society and the Healthy Homosexual.'' </ref> The term then entered common usage beginning with pornographic publications. <ref>Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., published ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century,'' in the April, 2004, issue of Sexuality Research & Social Policy. </ref>

The terms meaning has not been accepted or agreed upon within the psychological therapeutic community. William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles <ref>William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/ Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues], Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689</ref> have concluded based upon research within the therapeutic community a clear understanding of the term has not been adequately evaluated and it is not clear whether the term can be accurately characterized. They have concluded, "the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality."

==="Internalized homophobia"===
The therapeutic community is largely divided between proponents of [[gay gene]] theory who believe a person is born gay and will always be gay, and proponents of [[Reparative therapy]] who believe with sympathy and understanding a homosexual can be relieved of afflictions if he so desires. Gay gene advocates seek to criminalize so-called "homophobia", despite many homophobes themselves being gay, whereas Restoration therapy advocates point out the cruelty of brainwashing a young person into believing -- based upon theoretical evidence -- there is no hope of ever leading a heterosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports homosexuality is a symptom of an underlying problem of [[gender identity]]. Nicolosi says,
:In the classic triadic family we have a sensitive boy who did not get the close, affirming relationship with his father that would have confirmed him in his gender identity, and a mother who is likely to be over-close and standing in the way between father and son. The father was not supportive enough in affirming, recognizing and reinforcing the boy's maleness. <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/griefwork.html Clinical Issues: Grief Work], Interview: Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.</ref>

Nicolosi adds many gay men admit that no matter how liberated they are, they always struggle, on some deeper level, with a sense of inferiority or self-loathing. Some therapists refer to this as internalized homophobia. Nicolosi attributes this feeling to an internal process, unrelated to social stigma, which precedes same-sex attractions.<ref>Ibid</ref>

=== Homophobia as an "Irrational Fear" ===
The suffix "phobia" <ref>Psychologists do not recognize it as a phobia in any generally recognized publication like the DSM IV.</ref> suggests an irrational fear, but it is most often used as a attack term by [[gay rights]] groups to suggest that opposition to [[homosexuality]] is irrational and hateful.<ref>Eg, this site [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm] first defines homophobia as a dread or fear, but says that it includes those who write their Congressmen to oppose same-sex marriage.</ref> Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated, "it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, 2003.</ref> Of the myriads of references to the term in popular and other sociologic publications Breiner observes, "There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined," in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) <ref>[http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm Specific Phobia DSM-IV Criteria]</ref> developed by the American Psychiatric Association. Breiner, an advocate of [[Reparative therapy]], acknowledges "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" as an irrational fear among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2 Timothy 1:7 says, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. <ref>[http://bible.cc/2_timothy/1-7.htm 2 Timothy 1:7]</ref>

=== Anti-homosexual violence ===

For 2005, the FBI reported 1,171 anti-gay violent crimes. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref> While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders. Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.

Violent crimes are defined as murder,
nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, and other. For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons <ref>U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Violent Crime Rates]</ref> or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref> Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States], by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1. </ref>

==See also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Opposition to homosexuality]]
*[[Gay agenda]]
*[[Gender identity disorder]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Totalitarianism

2007-05-12T15:38:08Z

Robledo: Qualification re. Islam & Iran + tidy up of refs

'''Totalitarianism''' is a political ethos which dictates the supremacy of the state over the individual freedoms of its citizens. A totalitarian state usually requires a defining ideology with which to justify its appropriation of the levers of power: extreme nationalism was the driving force behind [[Nazism]]; [[Marxism]] in the case of the Soviet Union; and fundamentalist [[Islam]] in the case of a [[theocracy]] such as [[Iran]]. [[China]] offers an interesting example of a totalitarian regime that has abandoned the practical ramifications of its ideology (Marxism), whilst retaining the power structures thus derived.

Such states are characterised by the extent of their subversion of the rule of law, with the police and judiciary acting as direct instruments of control and providing no meaningful check or balance upon the ruling elite. Media outlets are subordinated to faithful promotion of the defining ideology and, as the state matures, this tends to be reinforced with coordinated programmes of indoctrination within the education system. Dissent is often brutally repressed (see [[torture]]) and extra-judicial killings are common. Other common features include the fostering of a personality cult around the head of state and rampant corruption due to the arbitrary enforcement of laws and statutes.

Arendt was one of the first to suggest that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were two sides of the same coin rather than opposing philosophies of Right and Left. <ref>''The Origins of Totalitarianism'' by [[Hannah Arendt]] ISBN 0-15-670153-7</ref>

==See also==
*[[Political spectrum]]

==External links==
*[http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.nazi.html Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian State] - explains difference between left and right wing.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Totalitarianism

2007-05-12T15:30:51Z

Robledo: /* Saudi Arabia */

==Ideas for future expansion==
*coining of the term "totalitarian"
*degree of control needed to qualify as "totalitarian"
*totalitarian twins
*Leftist objections to usage of the term "totalitarian"

The parallel article at Wikipedia suffers from editwaritis. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Saudi Arabia ==

Monarchy, surely? Granted Wahabism prevails, but it's the King who's boss, not the imams. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:12, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

They do have a religious police, lashes are still lawful punishment, Islamic polygamy is allowed, women are restricted form obtaining a driver's license.

Yes, there is a king, but the last king was a fundamentalist Muslim, his son has promised progress and reforms but so far we haven't seen a lot.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Agreed. But the key test is in the actual balance of power between the king/princes and the religious authorities. My suggestion is this: at the moment, the religious authorities have power ''because'' of the royal family. If at any time they fancied ridding themselves of a few turbulent priests, as it were, then they could do exactly that.

The day I see a Saudi prince dragged before the religious authorities for some Sharia transgression, is the day I'll say, yes, Saudi Arabia is a true theocracy. I don't see it happening any time soon, fella. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 11:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Homophobia

2007-05-12T02:01:28Z

Robledo: /* Homophobia as an "Irrational Fear" */ sp.

{{delete}}

'''Homophobia''' is a term with complex, overlapping meanings. It can mean a fear of male emotional intimacy, as well as an unprincipled [[opposition to homosexuality]].

'''Homophobia''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] term originally intended to portray principalled opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as an abnormal mental condition. It was introduced into scientific literature shortly before the American Psychiatric Association declassified its diagnosis of [[homosexuality]] as a [[mental illness]] in 1973. Recent research however, claims that among non-homosexual homophobes, no phobia exists, <ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articles/674/CFI/cfreport/index.htmNew Study Says There’s No Phobia in ‘Homophobia’], Martha Kleder, CWA, 6/28/2002.</ref> and most homophobes are homosexual who suffer from "internalized homophobia". The is no agreement within the psychiatric and theraputic profressions on what the term actually means.

According to the National Association for Research & Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH), gay-rights advocate Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. wrote that the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]. "In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today."</ref>
It is primarily used by [[gay activist]]s to portray opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as irrational <ref>Charles W. Socarides, M.D., [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], ''America'', (November 18, 1995). </ref>
based on fear or hatred, and to smear Christians and others. It is intended to sound like a form of [[mental illness]], but unlike actual phobias, it is not a term for any recognized psychological condition. NARTH says,
:"The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia—or irrational fear—of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html NARTH Position Statements]</ref>

When used in this [[pejorative]] sense, the term is offensive and derogatory (see [[Mockery]]).

===Etymology===
The word comes from combining the Greek prefix ''homo-'', meaning "same", and suffix ''-phobia'', meaning "fear of". In early usage by homosexual activists, the term described heterosexual fears that others might think they were homosexual <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html</ref> The neologism was promoted by George Weinberg, a gay activist and psychologist, who attempted to define it in clinical literature shortly before the downgrading of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Asscoaition in 1973. Weinberg claimed it was "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals -- and in the case of homosexuals themselves, selfloathing."<ref>Plummer, David, ''One of the Boys: Masculinity, Homophobia, and Modern Manhood'', [http://books.google.com/books?id=xHGz4f_2_7IC&pg=PA3&ots=U8ktZZgnAk&dq=George+Weinberg+homophobia&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=d7hjCcZ1uuBlgdLyRjUJwEn51uA#PPA3,M1 pp. 3-4]: "'Homophobia was introduced into the clinical literature by George Weinberg in 1972, in ''Society and the Healthy Homosexual.'' </ref> The term then entered common usage beginning with pornographic publications. <ref>Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., published ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century,'' in the April, 2004, issue of Sexuality Research & Social Policy. </ref>

The terms meaning has not been accepted or agreed upon within the psychological therapeutic community. William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles <ref>William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/ Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues], Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689</ref> have concluded based upon research within the therapeutic community a clear understanding of the term has not been adequately evaluated and it is not clear whether the term can be accurately characterized. They have concluded, "the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality."

==="Internalized homophobia"===
The therapeutic community is largely divided between proponents of [[gay gene]] theory who believe a person is born gay and will always be gay, and proponents of [[Reparative therapy]] who believe with sympathy and understanding a homosexual can be relieved of afflictions if he so desires. Gay gene advocates seek to criminalize so-called "homophobia", despite many homophobes themselves being gay, whereas Restoration therapy advocates point out the cruelty of brainwashing a young person into believing -- based upon theoretical evidence -- there is no hope of ever leading a heterosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports homosexuality is a symptom of an underlying problem of [[gender identity]]. Nicolosi says,
:In the classic triadic family we have a sensitive boy who did not get the close, affirming relationship with his father that would have confirmed him in his gender identity, and a mother who is likely to be over-close and standing in the way between father and son. The father was not supportive enough in affirming, recognizing and reinforcing the boy's maleness. <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/griefwork.html Clinical Issues: Grief Work], Interview: Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.</ref>

Nicolosi adds many gay men admit that no matter how liberated they are, they always struggle, on some deeper level, with a sense of inferiority or self-loathing. Some therapists refer to this as internalized homophobia. Nicolosi attributes this feeling to an internal process, unrelated to social stigma, which precedes same-sex attractions.<ref>Ibid</ref>

=== Homophobia as an "Irrational Fear" ===
The suffix "phobia" <ref>Psychologists do not recognize it as a phobia in any generally recognized publication like the DSM IV.</ref> suggests an irrational fear, but it is most often used as a attack term by [[gay rights]] groups to suggest that opposition to [[homosexuality]] is irrational and hateful.<ref>Eg, this site [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm] first defines homophobia as a dread or fear, but says that it includes those who write their Congressmen to oppose same-sex marriage.</ref> Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated, "it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, 2003.</ref> Of the myriads of references to the term in popular and other sociologic publications Breiner observes, "There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined," in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) <ref>[http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm Specific Phobia DSM-IV Criteria]</ref> developed by the American Psychiatric Association. Breiner, an advocate of [[Reparative therapy]], acknowledges "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" as an irrational fear among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2 Timothy 1:7 says, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. <ref>[http://bible.cc/2_timothy/1-7.htm 2 Timothy 1:7]</ref>

=== Anti-homosexual violence ===

Principled opponents of homosexuality '''explicitly reject''' violence or intimidation directed against individuals because their sexual orientation.

==See also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Opposition to homosexuality]]
*[[Gay agenda]]
*[[Gender identity disorder]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Homophobia

2007-05-12T02:00:32Z

Robledo: /* Anti-homosexual violence */ Final offer - no more arguing about stats, just a straighforward rejection of violence.

{{delete}}

'''Homophobia''' is a term with complex, overlapping meanings. It can mean a fear of male emotional intimacy, as well as an unprincipled [[opposition to homosexuality]].

'''Homophobia''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] term originally intended to portray principalled opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as an abnormal mental condition. It was introduced into scientific literature shortly before the American Psychiatric Association declassified its diagnosis of [[homosexuality]] as a [[mental illness]] in 1973. Recent research however, claims that among non-homosexual homophobes, no phobia exists, <ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articles/674/CFI/cfreport/index.htmNew Study Says There’s No Phobia in ‘Homophobia’], Martha Kleder, CWA, 6/28/2002.</ref> and most homophobes are homosexual who suffer from "internalized homophobia". The is no agreement within the psychiatric and theraputic profressions on what the term actually means.

According to the National Association for Research & Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH), gay-rights advocate Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. wrote that the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]. "In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today."</ref>
It is primarily used by [[gay activist]]s to portray opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as irrational <ref>Charles W. Socarides, M.D., [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], ''America'', (November 18, 1995). </ref>
based on fear or hatred, and to smear Christians and others. It is intended to sound like a form of [[mental illness]], but unlike actual phobias, it is not a term for any recognized psychological condition. NARTH says,
:"The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia—or irrational fear—of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html NARTH Position Statements]</ref>

When used in this [[pejorative]] sense, the term is offensive and derogatory (see [[Mockery]]).

===Etymology===
The word comes from combining the Greek prefix ''homo-'', meaning "same", and suffix ''-phobia'', meaning "fear of". In early usage by homosexual activists, the term described heterosexual fears that others might think they were homosexual <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html</ref> The neologism was promoted by George Weinberg, a gay activist and psychologist, who attempted to define it in clinical literature shortly before the downgrading of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Asscoaition in 1973. Weinberg claimed it was "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals -- and in the case of homosexuals themselves, selfloathing."<ref>Plummer, David, ''One of the Boys: Masculinity, Homophobia, and Modern Manhood'', [http://books.google.com/books?id=xHGz4f_2_7IC&pg=PA3&ots=U8ktZZgnAk&dq=George+Weinberg+homophobia&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=d7hjCcZ1uuBlgdLyRjUJwEn51uA#PPA3,M1 pp. 3-4]: "'Homophobia was introduced into the clinical literature by George Weinberg in 1972, in ''Society and the Healthy Homosexual.'' </ref> The term then entered common usage beginning with pornographic publications. <ref>Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., published ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century,'' in the April, 2004, issue of Sexuality Research & Social Policy. </ref>

The terms meaning has not been accepted or agreed upon within the psychological therapeutic community. William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles <ref>William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/ Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues], Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689</ref> have concluded based upon research within the therapeutic community a clear understanding of the term has not been adequately evaluated and it is not clear whether the term can be accurately characterized. They have concluded, "the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality."

==="Internalized homophobia"===
The therapeutic community is largely divided between proponents of [[gay gene]] theory who believe a person is born gay and will always be gay, and proponents of [[Reparative therapy]] who believe with sympathy and understanding a homosexual can be relieved of afflictions if he so desires. Gay gene advocates seek to criminalize so-called "homophobia", despite many homophobes themselves being gay, whereas Restoration therapy advocates point out the cruelty of brainwashing a young person into believing -- based upon theoretical evidence -- there is no hope of ever leading a heterosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports homosexuality is a symptom of an underlying problem of [[gender identity]]. Nicolosi says,
:In the classic triadic family we have a sensitive boy who did not get the close, affirming relationship with his father that would have confirmed him in his gender identity, and a mother who is likely to be over-close and standing in the way between father and son. The father was not supportive enough in affirming, recognizing and reinforcing the boy's maleness. <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/griefwork.html Clinical Issues: Grief Work], Interview: Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.</ref>

Nicolosi adds many gay men admit that no matter how liberated they are, they always struggle, on some deeper level, with a sense of inferiority or self-loathing. Some therapists refer to this as internalized homophobia. Nicolosi attributes this feeling to an internal process, unrelated to social stigma, which precedes same-sex attractions.<ref>Ibid</ref>

=== Homophobia as an "Irrational Fear" ===
The suffix "phobia" <ref>Psychologists do not recognize it as a phobia in any generally recognized publication like the DSM IV.</ref> suggests an irrational fear, but it is most often used as a attack term by [[gay rights]] groups to suggest that opposition to [[homosexuality]] is irrational and hateful.<ref>Eg, this site [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm] first defines homophobia as a dread or fear, but says that it includes those who write their Congressmen to oppose same-sex marriage.</ref> Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated, "it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, 2003.</ref> Of the myriads of references to the term in popular and other sociologic publications Breiner observes, "There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined," in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) <ref>[http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm Specific Phobia DSM-IV Criteria]</ref> developed by the American Psychiatric Association. Breiner, an advocate of [[Reparative therapy]], acknowledges "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" as an irrational fear among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2 Timnothy 1:7 says, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. <ref>[http://bible.cc/2_timothy/1-7.htm 2 Timothy 1:7]</ref>

=== Anti-homosexual violence ===

Principled opponents of homosexuality '''explicitly reject''' violence or intimidation directed against individuals because their sexual orientation.

==See also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Opposition to homosexuality]]
*[[Gay agenda]]
*[[Gender identity disorder]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Totalitarianism

2007-05-12T01:22:41Z

Robledo: Characterisation

'''Totalitarianism''' is a political ethos which dictates the supremacy of the state over the individual freedoms of its citizens. A totalitarian state usually requires a defining ideology with which to justify its appropriation of the levers of power: extreme nationalism was the driving force behind [[Nazism]]; [[Marxism]] in the case of the Soviet Union; and [[Islam]] in the case of a [[theocracy]] such as [[Iran]]. [[China]] offers an interesting example of a totalitarian regime that has abandoned the practical ramifications of its ideology (Marxism), whilst retaining the power structures thus derived.

Such states are characterised by the extent of their subversion of the rule of law, with the police and judiciary acting as direct instruments of control and providing no meaningful check or balance upon the ruling elite. Media outlets are subordinated to faithful promotion of the defining ideology and, as the state matures, this tends to be reinforced with coordinated programmes of indoctrination within the education system. Dissent is often brutally repressed (see [[torture]]) and extra-judicial killings are common. Other common features include the fostering of a personality cult around the head of state and rampant corruption due to the arbitrary enforcement of laws and statutes.

Arendt was one of the first to suggest that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were two sides of the same coin rather than opposing philosophies of Right and Left. <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Totalitarianism-Hannah-Arendt/dp/0156701537]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Political spectrum]]

==Bibliography==

''The Origins of Totalitarianism''
by [[Hannah Arendt]] ISBN 0-15-670153-7

==External links==
*[http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.nazi.html Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian State] - explains difference between left and right wings

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Theocracy

2007-05-11T23:46:45Z

Robledo:

Why do certain editors have a problem with the word Biblical law?

The first time I put it in next to Sharia (there were now 2 examples of religious law) it was reverted and I thought it was because the editor in question believed it would make that section to lengthy, making it less clear.

Then I added Manu Smriti and put Biblical Law back in (there were now 3 examples of religious law), but only Biblical was removed afterwards, why?

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Because some poor innocent (or possibly the FBI) might think that this site agitates for a United States of God's America. All this talk of the right to bear arms on userpages.....the game's afoot! --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-11T21:30:32Z

Robledo: /* Unclear Sentence */Rom 1:26

Talk:Totalitarianism

2007-05-11T20:12:58Z

Robledo: Saudi?

Totalitarianism

2007-05-11T20:05:04Z

Robledo: Revised intro

Talk:Homophobia

2007-05-11T18:41:08Z

Robledo: /* Unclear Sentence */Lev. 18:22

Astronomy

2007-05-10T22:28:05Z

Robledo: typo

'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=astronomy</ref> It has been studied since ancient times, forming a major part of the [[religion]]s of many early [[civilization]]s such as the [[Egpyt|Egyptians]] and the [[Aztecs]]. The great stone henge at [[Stonehenge]] in [[England]] is also thought to be an astronomical observatory. The handing down of complex astronomical teachings shows these early [[civilization]]s must have had formalized systems of [[education]].

Astronomy was crucial to the development of [[safe]] and accurate [[navigation]] for ships, and observations of the movement of [[sky|heavenly bodies]] helped lead to the theories we now call [[physics]]. In fact, much of astronomy today relies physics, thus many astronomers are considered astrophysicists. 

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and they also claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref> <ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Also, these scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of astronomy. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html</ref> [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science of astronomy and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astromical bodies are inadequate:

:“...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 <blockquote>Full text of passage: Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries. As some monitoring records approach the requisite 12 years, Doppler detection of extrasolar Jupiters may not be far off. And searches are in the works for terrestrial-sized planets by looking for planets passing in front of their stars. But Tremaine remains cautious about what these searches will turn up. Speaking as a theorist, he notes that "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong."</blockquote></ref> This quotation refers to a specific model of planet development, though: not the science of planetary development, as a whole.

:“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5665/1750</ref> This, too, refers only to an innovative and groundbreaking new model of galactic formation, and not to some scientific shortcoming as a whole.

:“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. This statement, made in 1983, describes astronomy before the efforts of the [[Hubble]] space telescope scientists caused many of the requested answers to be within reach.

Also, these scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref> <ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref> <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref> <ref name="AiG Astr QA" /> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang Theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>

In regards to the question of how one can see starlight from millions of years of light years away, young earth creationists scientists commonly mention two things. First, these scientists assert that the [[Big Bang Theory]] has a star light-travel time problem and cite the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp</ref> Secondly, the work of young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] is cited who proposes a young earth creationist cosmology that rejects an [[a priori]] [[methodological naturalism]] approach to the question of how one can see starlight from millions of light years away. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp</ref>

== Problems for Young Earth Creationism ==

Because velocity = distance/time, a young earth creationist wishing to postulate a universe of approximately 6000 years old faces a number of problems if one uses an [[a priori]] [[methodological naturalism]] approach to the issue:

1. If they accept that the speed of light is indeed a constant 299,792,458 meters per second (approximately 186,282.3 miles per second), then they must argue for massive and systemic error in the measurement of distance between Earth and the vast majority of the observable universe.

2. If they accept that the measured distances are correct, then they must argue for a catastrophic miscalculation of the speed of light.

==References==

<references/>

==External Links==
[http://www.nasa.gov The NASA Homepage] 
[http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov The NASA Planetary Photojournal] 
[http://www.aas.org American Astronomical Society] 
[http://www.britastro.org/baa/ British Astronomical Association] 
[http://www.john-duck.co.uk/html/astronomy.html A guide on how to start] 

[[Category:Science]]

User talk:Dpbsmith

2007-05-09T22:52:40Z

Robledo: /* Racist edit summary */

Talk:Cross-dressing

2007-05-09T20:51:32Z

Robledo:

You could spin off a [[Temptation]] article from this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Indeed. I was surprised that the link was red. I was sure we'd have something on temptation by now. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Trying to be positive here ==

But this is terrible. This article has zero-depth. And, frankly, do we need the paragraph at the bottom? I mean, honestly, why not just describe the act and the attraction to said act and move on? Why all this religious stuff about the wearing of clothes? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it is in the [[Bible]]. I'm honestly appalled at the practice, but it seems to be gaining more prevalence as time goes on. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 16:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suppose, but there are a lot of things in the bible, must we include them all every time? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

This site might just have moved beyond satire. Vossy, my man, I ask you this question in all sincerity: ''why'' would God care? I reckon coveting your neighbour's new patio furniture is probably naughtier than this. Anyone up for a game of the Seven Most Trivial Sins? --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Ozone

2007-05-08T23:37:43Z

Robledo:

'''Ozone''' is a chemical [[compound]] consisting of three [[oxygen]] atoms. It is represented by the symbol O3.

It is unstable at standard temperatures and pressures, and a powerful [[oxidizer]]. At the earth's surface it occurs naturally as a result of electrical discharges, most prominently in the form of [[lightning]]. It is also created by [[man-made]] sparks, such as in an electrical motor.

In the stratosphere it serves a very important function, by acting to filter out most of the [[sun]]'s ultraviolet radiation.

Scientists have measured an annual, temporary thinning layer of ozone over the north and south poles, called an "ozone hole".<ref>http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole.html</ref>

Much of this is a result of the breakdown of [[chlorofluorocarbons]] and the release of elemental [[chlorine]], which acts as [[catalyst]]s to break down the O3 molecules.<ref>Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) themselves are not involved in the catalytic process; upon reaching the stratosphere, they are subject to higher levels of ultraviolet radiation that decompose the CFC and release atomic chlorine. [http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/OZ/ozndplt.html Catalytic destruction of ozone] </ref>

[[Image:Ozonemech.gif|framed|The mechanism by which ozone is broken down in the stratosphere by Cl atoms. Note that the propagation steps repeat thousands of time, such that one molecule of a CFC can destroy thousands of molecules of O3]]

*In April 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that ozone levels in the Northern Hemisphere had decreased by as much as 5 percent over the United States in the past 10 years.
*A minority opinion holds that ozone depletion has little to do with CFCs and that the ozone hole may be more natural than man-made. S. Fred Singer, an environmental scientist at the University of Virginia, has argued that a rise in methane or changes in the sun's cycle may affect ozone. He also believes the lack of historical data about ozone depletion makes it difficult to determine if similar changes occurred centuries before hairspray cans were invented. [http://www.coaleducation.org/issues/DEPLET.HTM]
<references/>

[[category:Chemistry]]

Chlorofluorocarbons

2007-05-08T23:29:10Z

Robledo:

'''Chlorofluorocarbons''', often referred to as CFCs, or by the brand name for one formulation, ''Freon'', are [[man-made]], stable, and non-toxic [[chemical]]s used primarily as refrigerants and aerosol propellants.

In 1984, scientists discovered CFCs to be one cause of the depletion of the [[ozone]] layer,{{fact-science}} which acts as a filter for ultraviolet radiation from the [[Sun]]. Because of this, many nations signed the Montreal-London Protocol. This [[treaty]] called for the production of CFCs to be stopped by the year 2000 for industrialized countries and the year 2010 for developing countries. The United States stopped production of CFCs in 1995, and alternate chemicals are used in their place.

[[category:Chemistry]]
[[category:Environment]]

Homophobia

2007-05-08T21:56:07Z

Robledo:

'''Homophobia''' is a term with complex, overlapping meanings. It can mean a fear of male emotional intimacy, as well as an unprincipled [[opposition to homosexuality]].

'''Homophobia''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] term originally intended to portray principalled opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as an abnormal mental condition. It was introduced into scientific literature shortly before the American Psychiatric Association declassified its diagnosis of [[homosexuality]] as a [[mental illness]] in 1973. Recent research however, claims that among non-homosexual homophobes, no phobia exists, <ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articles/674/CFI/cfreport/index.htmNew Study Says There’s No Phobia in ‘Homophobia’], Martha Kleder, CWA, 6/28/2002.</ref> and most homophobes are homosexual who suffer from "internalized homophobia". The is no agreement within the psychiatric and theraputic profressions on what the term actually means.

According to the National Association for Research & Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH), gay-rights advocate Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. wrote that the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]. "In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today."</ref>
It is primarily used by [[gay activist]]s to portray opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as irrational <ref>Charles W. Socarides, M.D., [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], ''America'', (November 18, 1995). </ref>
based on fear or hatred, and to smear Christians and others. It is intended to sound like a form of [[mental illness]], but unlike actual phobias, it is not a term for any recognized psychological condition. NARTH says,
:"The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia—or irrational fear—of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html NARTH Position Statements]</ref>

When used in this [[pejorative]] sense, the term is offensive and derogatory (see [[Mockery]]).

===Etymology===
The word comes from combining the Greek prefix ''homo-'', meaning "same", and suffix ''-phobia'', meaning "fear of". In early usage by homosexual activists, the term described heterosexual fears that others might think they were homosexual <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html</ref> The neologism was promoted by George Weinberg, a gay activist and psychologist, who attempted to define it in clinical literature shortly before the downgrading of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Asscoaition in 1973. Weinberg claimed it was "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals -- and in the case of homosexuals themselves, selfloathing."<ref>Plummer, David, ''One of the Boys: Masculinity, Homophobia, and Modern Manhood'', [http://books.google.com/books?id=xHGz4f_2_7IC&pg=PA3&ots=U8ktZZgnAk&dq=George+Weinberg+homophobia&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=d7hjCcZ1uuBlgdLyRjUJwEn51uA#PPA3,M1 pp. 3-4]: "'Homophobia was introduced into the clinical literature by George Weinberg in 1972, in ''Society and the Healthy Homosexual.'' </ref> The term then entered common usage beginning with pornographic publications. <ref>Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., published ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century,'' in the April, 2004, issue of Sexuality Research & Social Policy. </ref>

The terms meaning has not been accepted or agreed upon within the psychological therapeutic community. William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles <ref>William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/ Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues], Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689</ref> have concluded based upon research within the therapeutic community a clear understanding of the term has not been adequately evaluated and it is not clear whether the term can be accurately characterized. They have concluded, "the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality."

==="Internalized homophobia"===
The therapeutic community is largely divided between proponents of [[gay gene]] theory who believe a person is born gay and will always be gay, and proponents of [[Reparative therapy]] who believe with sympathy and understanding a homosexual can be relieved of afflictions if he so desires. Gay gene advocates seek to criminalize so-called "homophobia", despite many homophobes themselves being gay, whereas Restoration therapy advocates point out the cruelty of brainwashing a young person into believing -- based upon theoretical evidence -- there is no hope of ever leading a heterosexual lifestyle.

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports homosexuality is a symptom of an underlying problem of [[gender identity]]. Nicolosi says,
:In the classic triadic family we have a sensitive boy who did not get the close, affirming relationship with his father that would have confirmed him in his gender identity, and a mother who is likely to be over-close and standing in the way between father and son. The father was not supportive enough in affirming, recognizing and reinforcing the boy's maleness. <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/griefwork.html Clinical Issues: Grief Work], Interview: Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.</ref>

Nicolosi adds many gay men admit that no matter how liberated they are, they always struggle, on some deeper level, with a sense of inferiority or self-loathing. Some therapists refer to this as internalized homophobia. Nicolosi attributes this feeling to an internal process, unrelated to social stigma, which precedes same-sex attractions.<ref>Ibid</ref>

=== Homophobia as an "Irrational Fear" ===
The suffix "phobia" <ref>Psychologists do not recognize it as a phobia in any generally recognized publication like the DSM IV.</ref> suggests an irrational fear, but it is most often used as a attack term by [[gay rights]] groups to suggest that opposition to [[homosexuality]] is irrational and hateful.<ref>Eg, this site [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm] first defines homophobia as a dread or fear, but says that it includes those who write their Congressmen to oppose same-sex marriage.</ref> Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated, "it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, 2003.</ref> Of the myriads of references to the term in popular and other sociologic publications Breiner observes, "There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined," in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) <ref>[http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm Specific Phobia DSM-IV Criteria]</ref> developed by the American Psychiatric Association. Breiner, an advocate of [[Reparative therapy]], acknowledges "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" as an irrational fear among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2 Timnothy 1:7 says, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. <ref>[http://bible.cc/2_timothy/1-7.htm 2 Timothy 1:7]</ref>

=== Anti-homosexual violence ===

Principled opponents of homosexuality '''explicity reject''' violence and intimidation directed against individuals because of their sexual orientation. According to FBI figures for 2003 - 2005, a male homosexual suffers a serious physical assault somewhere in America every 3-4 days because of antipathy towards his sexual orientation.<ref>Hate crime figures, 2003 - Table 4, p.18 - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf</ref><ref>Hate crime figures, 2004 - Table 4, p.19 - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf</ref><ref>Hate crime figures, 2005 - Table 4 - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm</ref> Incidences of common assault and intimidation are even more frequent. Occasionally, this violent antipathy leads to murder. <ref>Gay man's killing 'tip of the iceberg' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5080164.stm</ref><ref>Life term for homophobic murder - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/5225008.stm</ref><ref>Men in court for homophobic murder - http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/stories/200301/21/murder_case.shtml</ref>

==See also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Opposition to homosexuality]]
*[[Gay agenda]]
*[[Gender identity disorder]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]